Dismissed¶60

Mr. Shiva Prasad v. Mrs. Janith Flavia Sequeria

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2026RPFC/144/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RPFC No. 144 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), decided 17.02.2026, Coram: Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha. Keywords: Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance; Section 19(4) Family Courts Act revision; proof of marriage; quantum Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- per month; post-order change of circumstances; modification application; subsequent-period bank statement irrelevant to earlier maintenance claim. Disposition: revision petition dismissed; Family Court order dated 02.04.2025 not interfered with; pending IAs closed.

What did the court decide?

The respondent, by all the evidence she produced, established solemnisation of marriage with the petitioner. ¶49

Mr. Shiva Prasad Vs Mrs. Janith Flavia Sequeria — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent proved solemnisation of marriage with the petitioner and is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as contested by the petitioner's denial of the marriage +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The respondent, by all the evidence she produced, established solemnisation of marriage with the petitioner.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's version that he was made to sign forms whose contents he did not know cannot be believed, since he holds a master's degree in business administration and is not illiterate.

¶49

Key takeaways

The statement of account produced through memo in the revision petition, whose transactions run only from 01.04.2024, cannot be taken into consideration to hold that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance, as the maintenance case was filed in 2016.ratio¶54
So far as change of circumstances projected by the petitioner is concerned, his remedy is to file an appropriate application for modification of the impugned order.ratio¶57
There are no grounds to entertain the revision petition or to set aside the order passed by the Family Court as sought for.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance — Revision petition under S.19(4) of the Family Courts Act against Family Court, Bengaluru judgment dated 02.04.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.195/2016 under S.125 Cr.P.C. — Family Court had directed payment of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of petition (01.04.2016) till the date of order and Rs.40,000/- per month thereafter, during the respondent's lifetime or till her marriage. Held: the respondent established solemnisation of marriage by the evidence produced; the petitioner, holder of a master's degree in business administration, could not be believed that he signed forms without knowing their contents; the respondent's statement of account covering transactions only from 01.04.2024 could not be considered to defeat maintenance in a case filed in 2016; any change of circumstances is a matter for an appropriate modification application before the Family Court. No grounds made out to entertain the revision or set aside the Family Court order. Revision petition dismissed; interlocutory applications, if any pending, closed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:9494 RPFC No. 144 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 144 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SHIVA PRASAD, S/O LATE P. V. GANESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶8

RESIDING AT C/O SAMRUDDHI REALY LTD., LANDMARK, NO. 21/15, 4^TH FLOOR, M. G. ROAD,

¶9

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SHIVA PRASAD, PETITIONER-PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MRS. JANITH FLAVIA SEQUERIA, W/O. MR. S. PRASAD,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9494 RPFC No. 144 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 422, 7^TH B MAIN, 2ND CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR,

¶18

BANGALORE - 560043.

¶19

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHREEDHAR KOTRASHETTI, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.195/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:9494 RPFC No. 144 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri.Shiva Prasad, the petitioner, who argued as party-in-person. Also heard Sri.Shreedhar Kotrashetti who represents Sri.Desai Rajendra Chandrashekar learned counsel on record for the respondent.

¶28

This revision petition is the outcome of the

¶29

order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.195/2016 dated 02.04.2025.

¶30

Respondent herein filed a petition against petitioner herein invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. Family Court through the impugned order directed petitioner herein to pay respondent a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e., 01.04.2016 till the date of order and thereafter Rs.40,000/- per month during the lifetime of respondent or till her marriage.

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9494 RPFC No. 144 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Arguing the matter, petitioner contends that respondent is not his wife at all. The marriage was not solemnized. But taking advantage of their association, respondent claimed herself to be his wife and filed false cases against him. Petitioner further submits that respondent is maintaining two boutiques and she has concealed said fact before Family Court. Petitioner states that the income of respondent is around Rs.32,00,000/between March 2024 and May 2025 from one of the two boutiques and thus, she earns a lot and thereby, she requires no additional sum from him. Petitioner also submits that respondent concealed the fact that she maintains an account at State Bank of India and thereby misled the Court. Petitioner thereby seeks to allow the revision petition.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that Family Court taking into consideration all the evidence produced, came to a just conclusion and thus, the revision petition lacks merits.

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9494 RPFC No. 144 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The case of respondent is that her marriage

¶38

with petitioner was solemnized on 26.01.2025 at St. Anthony's Church, Hosanagar, Shivamogga and thereafter both of them stayed at Ramamurthy Nagar. Later petitioner started harassing her, assaulted her and

¶39

drove her out of the house. Her version is also that petitioner works in Samrudhi Realty Ltd., as manager and earns Rs.3,00,000/- per month, has own house, a car, has a resort and hotels at Chikkamagaluru and gets huge income and rent out of the said property. She also stated that petitioner illegally married one Achintya Shiva and they gave birth to a kid by name Inka.

¶40

The contention of petitioner on the other hand is that he belongs to Hindu religion and respondent belongs to Christian community. He was made to sign on some forms on two different occasions whose contents he do not know. Though he did not marry respondent, he was compelled to give security deposit to rent a house and thereafter he came to know that respondent is having

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9494 RPFC No. 144 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

affair with another man and thereby he dropped the idea of marrying her. Respondent absconded in the year 2007 and he came to know that she ran away to Pune with another man and lived with him. She was not known till 2012 and thereafter she came to Bangalore and started calling him demanding money. During 2005 she worked at Chaitanya Projects as receptionist and from 2013 to 2015 she was working with AVM Trust. He never married anyone and respondent laid false allegations.

¶44

Subjecting the evidence of PW1 to PW4, RW1, Exs.P1 to P32, Exs.R1 and R2 to scrutiny, Family Court came to a conclusion that respondent proved the marriage with petitioner herein. Family Court also came to a conclusion that respondent is entitled for maintenance from petitioner herein.

¶45

There is no denial of the fact that petitioner is

¶46

not an illiterate. As per his own statement he holds master's degree in business administration. That being the

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:9494 RPFC No. 144 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

case, his version that he was made to sign on some forms whose contents he do not know, cannot be believed. That apart, respondent by all the evidence she produced has established solemnisation of marriage between her and petitioner herein. Petitioner who initially denied his marriage with Achintya Shiva and birth of kid by name Inka, during the course of cross-examination, as rightly observed by the Family Court, admitted marrying the said woman and birth of child. On a query posed by this Court, as to why he did not show their names in his statement of assets and liabilities, at least as dependants, petitioner states that as Smt.Achintya Shiva has got her own source of earnings and as Mrs.Achintya Shiva and their child Inka are not depending upon him he has not shown their names.

¶50

Discussing at length with regard to the financial status of petitioner herein, more particularly at paras 37 to 40 of the impugned order, Family Court came to a conclusion that respondent herein is entitled to a sum of

¶51

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:9494 RPFC No. 144 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of presentation of petition for maintenance till the date of order and thereafter she is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month.

¶54

The submission of petitioner before this Court is that after disposal of the case before the Family Court, he came to know that respondent is maintaining two boutiques and earns lot of amount. Such being the case, nothing prevents petitioner to file an application seeking modification of the impugned order. Though petitioner seeks this Court to look into the statement of account produced through a memo in this revision petition, the transactions in the said statement of account are from 01.04.2024. Maintenance case was filed in the year 2016. Therefore, the said statement of account cannot be taken into consideration to hold that respondent is not entitled for maintenance. Family Court discussing at length with regard to the merits of the matter, came to a just conclusion that respondent herein is entitled for

¶55

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:9494 RPFC No. 144 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

maintenance from petitioner and also the quantum. So far as change of circumstances are concerned as projected by petitioner, as earlier indicated petitioner has remedy to file appropriate application for modification of the impugned order.

¶58

Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to entertain this revision petition and to set aside the order that is passed by the Family Court as sought for. Resultantly, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The revision petition is dismissed.

¶61

Proceedings in interlocutory applications, if any

¶62

pending, are closed.

¶63

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶64

DS CT:TSM