Dismissed¶64

Sri Prashanth Kumar. D. v. Smt. Kalavathi. R.

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2025WP/11270/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance; Section 125(1)(a) and (b) Cr.PC.; able-bodied husband's duty to maintain wife and minor child; flower vendor spouses claiming equal income of Rs.6,000/- p.m.; affidavit of assets and liabilities; income-of-spouse column 'No'; Zomato Delivery Boy claim unproved; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cross-examination; Article 227 writ (GM-FC); Family Court Bengaluru; no interference with interim maintenance; merits left open at evidence stage.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the impugned interim maintenance order dated 07.09.2022 was sustained, with no opinion expressed on the merits. ¶64

Sri Prashanth Kumar. D. Vs Smt. Kalavathi. R. — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the impugned interim maintenance order dated 07.09.2022 was sustained, with no opinion expressed on the merits.

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month awarded to the respondent-wife by the Family Court is sustainable, given the petitioner's contention that both spouses earn the same income of Rs.6,000/- per month as flower vendors and that he bears additional financial responsibility towards his ailing mother and unmarried sister.

¶32

Court's answer

On the documents produced, the petitioner-husband being an able-bodied person engaged in flower vending, it is his liability and responsibility to maintain his wife and the minor child.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner asserts that the wife is capable of maintaining herself, he must produce relevant materials before the Court to establish that claim.

¶54

Key takeaways

The petitioner's claim that he has shifted to working as a Zomato Delivery Boy is unproved, nothing having been produced before the Court to establish that fact or any income earned therefrom.ratio¶54
Since the petitioner himself recorded 'No' in the income-of-spouse column of his affidavit of assets and liability filed before the Family Court on 27.01.2023, the Court cannot assume that the respondent-wife is working and earning any income.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), by oral order dated 20.03.2025, dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by a husband challenging the Family Court's interim maintenance order dated 07.09.2022 in Crl.Misc.316/2019 (IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru), which directed him to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the minor child under Section 125(1)(a) and (b) of Cr.PC. Counsel for the petitioner urged that both spouses earned an identical Rs.6,000/- per month as flower vendors — a position stated to have been affirmed by the wife in cross-examination in a case she initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — and that the husband additionally supported his ailing mother and unmarried sister; a claimed shift to work as a Zomato delivery boy was unproved. Holding the husband able-bodied and bound to maintain his wife and child, that no material showed the wife capable of maintaining herself, and that his own affidavit of assets and liability (filed 27.01.2023) recorded the wife's income as 'No', the Court found no good ground to interfere, sustained the impugned order, and expressly left the merits open, permitting the parties to adduce further materials at the evidence stage.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:11810 WP No. 11270 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.11270 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR D. S/O.LATE K.DODDABOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.41/1, I BLOCK I CROSS, SAIBABA TEMPLE ROAD THYAGARAJA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 028

¶7

… PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI H.V.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT.KALAVATHI R. W/O.PRASHANTH KUMAR D. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶11

MASTER KUMARASWAMY P. S/O.PRASHANTH KUMAR D.

¶12

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER-SMT.KALAVATHI R. W/O.PRASHANTH KUMAR D.

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.6 C/O.KAMALAKANNAN KALYANI GARDEN ASHOKA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 050

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI LOHITH KUMAR G.C. FOR SRI CHANNA GANGAIAH G.H., ADVOCATES)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11810 WP No. 11270 of 2023

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2022 PASSED ON AN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE WIFE UNDER SECTION 125(1)(a) AND (b) OF CR.PC. IN CRL.MISC.NO.316/2019 BY IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, challenging the order dated 07.09.2022 passed on an Interlocutory Application filed by the wife under Section 125(1)(a) and (b) of Cr.PC. in Crl.Misc.316/2019 by IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby learned Judge of the Family Court partly allowed

¶23

the said application directing the petitioner herein to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2-minor child.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11810 WP No. 11270 of 2023

¶25

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind and without consideration of the materials placed on record for the reason that the learned Judge of the Family Court has failed to take into consideration the actual income and the admitted income

¶26

by both the petitioner and the respondent, which according to each of them is only Rs.6,000/- per month by selling the flowers as a flower vendor. He submits that the

¶27

same has been affirmed by the respondent-wife in the cross-examination in the case initiated by her before the Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶28

2.1 It is also contented by learned counsel for petitioner that when the respondent-wife herself is working and earning as a flower vendor, she is disentitled

¶29

for maintenance as the financial status of both the petitioner and the respondent are one and the same, so

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11810 WP No. 11270 of 2023

¶31

also, their avocation of being flower vendors, their income is generated by selling the flowers. Learned counsel

¶32

further contends that he is ready and willing to pay the maintenance for the minor child howsoever difficult it may be, as he would have to maintain his mother and unmarried sister. Under the circumstance, he contends that the maintenance amount as ordered by the Family Court in favour of the respondent-wife is not sustainable and the same deserves to be set-aside.

¶33

2.2 It is also contended by learned counsel for petitioner that apart from maintaining the minor child, the petitioner has to take care of his mother, who is ailing and also his sister, who is unmarried and living with him, which is an additional financial responsibility for him. On these grounds, he seeks to allow the petition and consequently, set-aside the order passed by the Family Court insofar as awarding of the maintenance amount as against the respondent-wife.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:11810 WP No. 11270 of 2023

¶36

Per contra , learned counsel for respondents vehemently contends that the petitioner is making misleading and false statements. He further contends that admittedly, both the petitioner and the respondent have filed their respective assets and liabilities before the Family Court in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.PC. He contends that in the assets and liabilities filed

¶37

by the petitioner before the Family Court, wherein, at Clause-F, he has not stated about the income that is generated or drawn by him. However, in the column at Clause-E with regard to details of the children of the parties, he has stated that Rs.40,000/- is incurred towards the medical expenses of the minor child. However, learned counsel submits that the amount so stated as Rs.40,000/-

¶38

is for per annum, but nothing is forthcoming therein. Again, in the column at Clause-J with regard to the income of the spouse, the petitioner has stated as 'No'. Therefore, he has not stated that the respondent-wife is earning any income, if it was so, he would have stated

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:11810 WP No. 11270 of 2023

¶41

'Yes' therein and the amount of income i.e. earned by the respondent-wife.

¶42

3.1 Learned counsel for respondent further contends

¶43

that the respondent is staying in a rented accommodation and she is paying a rent of Rs.6,000/- per month. She has filed her affidavit of assets and liability, wherein at Clause-C, she has disclosed the approximate expenses of the minor child to be Rs.4,000/- per month, so also, she has stated in the column at Clause-E with regard to Details of Children of the parties, that Rs.3,000/- per month is incurred towards food, clothing and medical expenses, Rs.33,000/- per annum is incurred towards School fee and Rs.30,000/- towards Private tuition fee. In the column at Clause-J with regard to income of the spouse, she has stated that the petitioner is running a flower shop business in his own building and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month and he is having his own house, the details of which are also mentioned therein. In the column at

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:11810 WP No. 11270 of 2023

¶46

Clause-F with regard to her income, she has stated the monthly income as 'Nil' ('NO').

¶47

3.2 Learned counsel contends that on taking a detailed note of these affidavits of assets and liabilities and considering the expenditure i.e. to be meted for food, clothing, shelter, tuition fee and other medical expenses of the minor child; the rental expenses that is incurred by the respondent-wife; no income is generated by her and the income of the petitioner that is stated by her at Rs.35,000/- p.m. and the petitioner owning an ancestral property, learned Judge of the Family Court has awarded maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.2minor child, which does not call for interference. On these grounds, he sustains the impugned order and seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶48

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶49

learned counsel for respondents, perused the impugned order and the affidavits of assets and liabilities produced

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:11810 WP No. 11270 of 2023

¶52

by the parties before the Family Court with regard to the expenditure that is required for maintenance of the wife and that of the minor child.

¶53

It is not in dispute that the petitioner-husband is an able-bodied person. Admittedly, he is doing some avocation of flower vending business. Learned counsel submits that he has now shifted his line of avocation to be

¶54

a Zomato Delivery Boy. Though he has stated so, nothing is produced before this Court to establish and prove this fact of him working as a Zomato Delivery Boy and earning an income. Be that as it may, on the basis of the documents produced and the petitioner being an ablebodied person, it is his liability and responsibility to maintain his wife and the minor child. If at all, the petitioner is able to show that the wife is capable of maintaining herself, he has to produce relevant materials before this Court to establish the same.

¶55

In the column of income of spouse in the affidavit

¶56

of assets and liability filed by the petitioner, he himself has

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:11810 WP No. 11270 of 2023

¶59

stated as 'No'. Therefore, when the petitioner himself stated that the respondent-wife is not working and earning any income in the affidavit of assets and liability, which is the latest document filed before the Family Court on 27.01.2023 while deciding the application for maintenance, now this Court cannot assume that she is working and earning any income.

¶60

Considering all these aspects, learned Judge of the

¶61

Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.2minor child. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the finding recorded by learned Judge of the Family Court on the interim application for maintenance.

¶62

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i) This petition is dismissed ;

¶65

ii) The impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed on

¶66

an Interlocutory Application filed by the wife under

¶67

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11810 WP No. 11270 of 2023

¶68

Section 125(1)(a) and (b) of Cr.PC. in Crl.Misc.316/2019 by IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is sustained;

¶69

iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter;

¶70

iv) It is open for the petitioner and the respondent to place further materials, as the matter is at the stage of evidence. If such materials are placed, the Family Court shall deal with the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced by the opinion expressed by this Court, which is only on the interim application filed by the wife.

¶71

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶72

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri Prashanth Kumar. D. v. Smt. Kalavathi. R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prashanth Kumar. D. v. Smt. Kalavathi. R.

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

Mr. Albert Vs Mr. Alok Kashyap

Sri R Hanumantha Vs Sri J Sridhar

Smt. Nirmala B B Vs Sri. Praveen P B

Sri. Avinash C. Alias Kiran Vs Smt. Shruthi. D

Hamsa R Vs Siddalingaprasad

Chetan Srivastava Vs Reetu Sinha