Allowed¶41

Mahadeva v. Smt.Prema

Family Courts Act, S.19(4) – Revision against enhancement of maintenance

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2025RPFC/284/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti J., 04.08.2025) allows RPFC No. 284 of 2022 filed under S.19(4) Family Courts Act by a 75-year-old husband against the Family Court, Mysuru order dated 01.02.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.613/2015 enhancing maintenance under S.127 Cr.P.C from Rs.300/- to Rs.5,000/- per month; enhancement set aside on grounds of husband's age, financial status and allotment of properties to the children in the civil compromise (O.S.No.473/2008, RFA.No.1717/2013); respondent served and unrepresented; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.02.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.613/2015 (Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru) set aside; RPFC allowed; all I.As. in the RPFC shall stand closed. ¶41

Mahadeva Vs Smt.Prema — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30473 RPFC No. 284 of 2022

¶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. 284 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MAHADEVA S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.26, SANGAM CIRCLE, MANCHEGOWDA KOPPAL, MYSORE, MYSURU DISTRICT -570 019

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.MOHAMMED KALEEM, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT.PREMA W/O MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.27, KUMARA BEEDI, KUMBARAKOPPALU, MYSURU-570 019

¶15

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS RPFC FILED U/S.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2018 PASSED IN Crl.MISC.NO.613/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU. PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.127 OF Cr.P.C FOR ENHANCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:30473 RPFC No. 284 of 2022

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.613/2015 dated 01.02.2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru whereby the Family Court had enhanced the maintenance from an amount of Rs.300/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. The husband is before this Court.

¶25

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

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the husband is aged about 75 years, he got re-married. In the second marriage, he had children and he is depending upon the children. Originally the maintenance petition was filed in the year 1991, at that time, maintenance of an amount of Rs.300/was granted. Thereafter, there was a panchayath between the parties and he was ready to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is submitted that the wife along with the children and others have filed O.S.No.473/2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore and the said suit came to be partly decreed. Against that RFA.No.1717/2013 was filed before this Court and the parties have entered into a

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30473 RPFC No. 284 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

compromise. As per the said compromise, certain properties were allotted to the children of the petitioner and she has also undertaken that she would not be pursuing any other litigation with respect to the said properties. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is aged about 75 years, depending upon his children for his maintenance, he is not in a position to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is submitted that before the Civil Court when the properties are allotted to the children, if the petitioner wants any maintenance she could have filed a case against the grown up children not against the petitioner, who is aged more than 70 years.

¶30

Though notice is served on the respondent, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. Considering the fact that the petitioner is aged 75 years and at this point of time, the application filed seeking enhancement of maintenance considering the financial status of the husband, age and the fact that properties are allotted to the child, the Family Court

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:30473 RPFC No. 284 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ought not to have granted the maintenance. In that view of the

¶36

matter, this Court is passing the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38