The High Court dismissed a review petition filed against an order granting maintenance to a wife and child. The Court held that maintaining such a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings is not maintainable as Section 362 Cr.P.C. restricts modification or review, and no error apparent on the face of the record existed.
Review petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:11740 RP No. 614 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO.614 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
H. S. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O. THYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU-560070.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMESH M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
W/O. H. S. RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. 5TH CROSS, SHESHADRIPURAM, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHOWRI H. R., SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K. K., SRI NAGARAJA B. G., & SMT. NIREEKSHA D. J., ADVOCATES
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 PASSED IN THE R.P.F.C.NO.11/2019 BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF KARNATAKA, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2026:KHC:11740 RP No. 614 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Though the matter is listed for hearing on
interlocutory application with the consent of both learned counsel matter is taken up for final disposal.
No.115/2012 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, seeking maintenance for herself and the second respondent before the Family Court, Shivamogga. The Family Court dismissed the maintenance petition insofar as the wife is concerned and granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the daughter.
NC: 2026:KHC:11740 RP No. 614 of 2024
HC-KAR
enhancement of the maintenance amount granted to the daughter. The Family Court assigned the following three reasons for dismissing the petition for maintenance insofar as the wife is concerned:
petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, observed that the Family Court committed an error in
NC: 2026:KHC:11740 RP No. 614 of 2024
HC-KAR
dismissing the petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned. This Court observed that the Family Court assumed, without any evidence, that the wife was working as an accountant in her brother's cement agency. When no evidence was produced by the husband in this regard, the Family Court merely assumed the fact and dismissed the petition. This constituted an error on the part of the Family Court, which has been rectified by this Court.
dependent on the mercy of her parents. Therefore, this Court observed that the Family Court erred in assuming
NC: 2026:KHC:11740 RP No. 614 of 2024
HC-KAR
that the wife had income without any supporting proof. Accordingly, the order of the Family Court was set aside.
erroneous. Merely because a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is granted and the wife does not join the matrimonial home, it does not bar the grant of maintenance. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides an option to both the husband and the wife to seek restitution of conjugal rights and resume marital life. If the wife does not join the matrimonial home despite such a decree, she cannot be compelled to join the husband merely because of the decree.
NC: 2026:KHC:11740 RP No. 614 of 2024
HC-KAR
the claim for maintenance solely on the ground that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was not honoured. The claim for maintenance is an independent right. The mere fact that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been granted and that the wife has not joined the matrimonial home cannot be a ground to deny maintenance, as there may be several reasons for her not returning to her husband’s home which may not have been explained before the Court in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, in this regard also, the Family Court committed an error and the said order was set aside.
NC: 2026:KHC:11740 RP No. 614 of 2024
HC-KAR
maintain his wife and child. Merely because the husband
has pleaded economic inability, it cannot be a ground to reject the maintenance petition. This Court further observed that the husband was running a petrol bunk and was also earning income by practising astrology. Although the learned counsel for the husband submitted that the husband had sustained losses in the petrol bunk business and had surrendered his dealership, no evidence in this regard is produced either before the Family Court or before this Court. Hence, it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife and child, and accordingly the order granting maintenance was passed.
NC: 2026:KHC:11740 RP No. 614 of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:11740 RP No. 614 of 2024
HC-KAR
process of the Court; rather, it is an exercise of the statutory right to claim maintenance. Further, under Section 362 Cr.P.C., except for correction of arithmetical or clerical errors, there is no scope for modification or
review of the order.
petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed .
In view of the dismissal of petition, pending I.A.’s,
if any, shall also stands dismissed.
Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
ASN /CT-AN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2
2 issues framed by the court
Is a review petition against an order passed in an RPFC filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act maintainable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings?
Are there grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC as there is no error apparent on the face of the record?
5 provisions across 4 enactments
H. S. Raghavendra
Sowmya Karanath
Kum. Sridhanavi
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
