Partly allowed¶¶41

Smt Nagarathna M v. E Eshwara M

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2025RPFC/24/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RPFC No. 24 of 2024; NC: 2025:KHC:30475; Lalitha Kanneganti J; decision dated 04.08.2025; maintenance enhancement; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Section 19(4) Family Court Act; decree for restitution of conjugal rights no bar to wife's maintenance where husband neither resumes cohabitation nor issues notice; husband BMTC driver earning Rs.35,000/- p.m.; wife granted Rs.7,000/- p.m.; child Rs.5,000/- p.m.; aggregate Rs.12,000/- p.m.; order dated 18.10.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.135/2019 (III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru) modified; writ petition/RPFC partly allowed; I.As. closed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified: wife granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month; with the child's Rs.5,000/- per month, the wife and child together entitled to Rs.12,000/- per month; all I.As. closed.

Smt Nagarathna M Vs E Eshwara M — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:30475 RPFC No. 24 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 24 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. NAGARATHNA M., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O SRI. ESHWARA M.,

¶10

MASTER RAHUL E., AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, S/O ESHWARA M.,

¶11

SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, SMT. NAGARATHNA M.,

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT SAPTHAGIRI COLLEGE ROAD, 15^TH CROSS, CHIKKASANDRA, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 057

¶14

(BY SRI. KALPANA P.V., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

E.ESHWARA M., S/O SRI. MUDDUVEERAPPA K., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.130/1, BHOOMIKA LAYOUT, (NMH LAYOUT), SIDEDAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGALORE-560 090

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30475 RPFC No. 24 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND ALSO AT, E.ESHWARA M., S/O SRI MUDDUVEERAPPA K., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS BMTC DEPO-15, DEEPANJALI NAGARA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 026

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(V/O/D 18/07/2025- NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶23

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2023 PASSED IN CRL. MISC.NO.135/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.135/2019 dated 18.10.2023 by the III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had rejected the claim of the wife and granted the maintenance to the child at Rs.5,000/- per month, the wife is before this court seeking enhancement of maintenance amount.

¶26

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:30475 RPFC No. 24 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that

¶31

though the husband had filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, he has not taken the wife back and it is an admitted fact that he had not issued any legal notice to her. In spite of the same, on the ground that there is a decree in restitution of conjugal rights, the Family Court had not granted maintenance to her. It is submitted that the husband is working as a driver in the BMTC and earning an amount of Rs.35,000/per month and the Family Court ought to have granted maintenance to the wife.

¶32

As per the order dated 18.07.2025, notice to the respondent is held to be deemed service of notice.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. It is the contention of the wife that in spite of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the husband had not taken her back. The husband also does not deny the fact that after the decree in restitution of conjugal rights, he had not issued any notice to the wife. They have a son in the wedlock and the wife is taking care of him. The Family Court on this ground ought not to have rejected the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:30475 RPFC No. 24 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

case of the wife. Considering the salary of the husband and the financial position of the wife and that she has to take care of the child, this Court is passing the following.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The impugned order passed in Crl.Misc. No.135/2019 dated 18.10.2023 by the III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is modified and the wife is entitled for maintenance of an amount Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶40

ii. The Family Court had already granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child. Altogether, the wife and the child are entitled for maintenance of an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month.

¶41

iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed .

¶42

iv. All I.As., in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶44

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Smt Nagarathna M v. E Eshwara M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagarathna M v. E Eshwara M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashanth S Vali Vs Smt Vishala (Bhagya)

Mr. Abdul Samad Hussain Vs Master Muhammad Zain Hussain

Sri Ganesh S Vs Smt Geeta G

Mahadeva Vs Smt.Prema

Sri C B Muthanna Vs Smt Vandana Machaya

Sri S Mohan Vs Mater Rishi Atreya