Partly allowed¶53

Smt. Uma v. Sri. a Banashankara

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2025RPFC/242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RPFC No. 242 of 2024; NC: 2025:KHC:21992; High Court of Karnataka; Lalitha Kanneganti; revision petition under S.19(4) Family Courts Act; maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; enhancement of maintenance; mentally and physically disabled major son; wife aged 61; husband avoiding court, notice held sufficient; Rs.5,000 per month each; Crl.Misc.No.312/2016; IV Additional Principal Judge Family Court Bengaluru; partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each to petitioner No.1 (wife) and petitioner No.2 (son); revision petition partly allowed; all I.As. closed. ¶53

Smt. Uma Vs Sri. a Banashankara — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each to petitioner No.1 (wife) and petitioner No.2 (son); revision petition partly allowed; all I.As. closed.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner No.2, a major son suffering mental and physical ailments, is entitled to maintenance, the Family Court having refused it on the ground that no medical document was filed. +1 more

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The respondent/husband is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each to petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2, enhancing the wife's maintenance from Rs.3,000/- and extending maintenance to the son whom the Family Court had denied.

¶52

Key takeaways

The revision petition is partly allowed.ratio¶53
All I.As. in the revision petition shall stand closed.ratio¶54
The Court observed that the husband was avoiding coming before the Court and shying away from the responsibility of taking care of the wife and the son who is incapable of maintaining himself.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, single judge) - RPFC No. 242 of 2024, decided 24.06.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:21992). Revision under S.19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 17.10.2023 of the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.312/2016 (filed under S.125 Cr.P.C.), which partly allowed the maintenance claim of Smt. Uma (wife, aged about 61) and her son Prasad (aged about 31, stated to be mentally and physically disabled and in her care): the Family Court had granted the wife only Rs.3,000/- per month (observing she was already receiving an additional Rs.2,000/-) and had refused maintenance to the major son for want of medical documents. Notice to the husband-respondent (A. Banashankara, aged about 74) was returned unclaimed and was held sufficient by order dated 02.05.2025; the Court noted the husband had not submitted to cross-examination before the Family Court, was neither paying the maintenance amount nor coming before the Court, and was shying away from responsibility towards the wife and a son 'incapable of maintaining himself'. Partly allowing the revision petition, the Court directed the husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each to the wife and the son; all I.As. were closed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:21992 RPFC No. 242 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 242 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. UMA W/O SRI A. BANASHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶11

PRASAD S/O A. BANASHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.22, M.S. LANE, JUMMA MASJID ROAD, CUBBONPET, BENGALURU-02 MENTALLY PHYSICALLY REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER 1 (MOTHER)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. A BANASHANKARA S/O LATE H. APPAIAHSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.193, APPAIAHSWAMY LAYOUT, 5^TH CROSS, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-64

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(V/O/D 02/05/2025- NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶20

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 PASSED IN Crl. Misc NO.312/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE FAMILY

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21992 RPFC No. 242 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

COURT, BENGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.312/2016

¶28

dated 17.10.2023 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶29

"PRAYER

¶30

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court be pleased to

¶31

a) call for records;

¶32

b) set aside the impugned order dated 17-10-2023 in Crl.Misc.No.312/2016 by the Hon'ble IV Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bangalore to the extent of non granting of the maintenance claimed by the petitioners;

¶33

c) Pass any order as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case in the ends of Justice and equity."

¶34

Crl.Misc.No.312/2016 is filed by the petitioners under

¶35

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of an amount of

¶36

Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.1/wife and an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.2/son. It is the case

¶37

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21992 RPFC No. 242 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

of the wife that the son is physically and mentally disabled person and he is under the care and custody of the wife. It is stated that the husband had deserted the wife and he is living with another woman. He is capable of maintaining the wife and in spite of the same, he is not taking care of the legally wedded wife and the son who is mentally and physically handicapped.

¶40

By way of the impugned order, the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and the Court had refused to grant maintenance to the son stating that no document is filed to show that the son is suffering with mental and physical ailments. While granting maintenance, the Family Court had observed that as the wife is already receiving additional amount of Rs.2,000/-, it is appropriate to grant maintenance of an amount of Rs.3,000/and accordingly granted an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1/wife is aged 62 years and petitioner No.2/son is 29 years old who is suffering with mental as well as physical ailments and mother is not in a position to take care of

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21992 RPFC No. 242 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the needs of the son. An amount of Rs.3,000/- per month that is granted by the Family Court is on the lower side. Learned counsel submits that the Family Court went wrong in observing that no medical document is filed to make out that the son is a mentally challenged person, he being the major, is not entitled for maintenance. He submits that though he is 29 years old he looks like a small boy and he is incapable of maintaining himself. Both the mother and the son are present before this Court. Even looking at the boy itself, the Court can understand the mental status of the boy. It is submitted that the Family Court ought to have granted maintenance as sought for.

¶45

Notice sent to the respondent was returned as unclaimed and this Court by order dated 02.05.2025 had held that the notice to respondent is sufficient.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The material on record shows that the husband had sold certain properties and had entered into certain transactions. Even before the Family Court also he had not subjected himself for cross-examination and it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21992 RPFC No. 242 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

in spite of the order passed by the Family Court, the husband is neither paying the maintenance amount nor coming before the Court. Even in this case also, the notice issued to the respondent is returned as unclaimed. It shows how the husband is avoiding to come before the Court and shying away from the responsibility of taking care of the wife and the son who is incapable of maintaining himself.

¶50