Dismissed¶63

Smt. Latha v. Sri. Gangadhar Kotiyavar

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026RPFC/298/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; revision under S.19(4) Family Courts Act; enhancement sought by wife (Rs.15,000 to Rs.60,000 per month); husband Branch Manager State Bank of India; wife degree holder not employed; quantum fixed on totality upheld; no grounds to interfere or set aside; both RPFC petitions dismissed; arrears payable within 4 months; Family Court Shivamogga; Crl.Misc.No.104/2018; Karnataka HC 2026.

What did the court decide?

The husband undoubtedly has a liability to maintain his wife unless and until he establishes grounds which disentitle the wife to claim maintenance. ¶57

Smt. Latha Vs Sri. Gangadhar Kotiyavar — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the wife is entitled to enhancement of the monthly maintenance beyond the Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Family Court, as she contends the sum is grossly low. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

A wife who holds a degree can easily find a job to earn some amount, though not necessarily the entire sum required for maintenance; by her own version she is sitting idle despite holding a degree.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The husband undoubtedly has a liability to maintain his wife unless and until he establishes grounds which disentitle the wife to claim maintenance.

¶57

Key takeaways

This Court cannot appreciate the wife's contention that the husband earns Rs.1,00,000/- per month out of which she needs Rs.60,000/- for her sustenance.ratio¶58
The Family Court, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, directed payment of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance.ratio¶58
This Court finds no grounds of interference; the observations made by the Family Court and the conclusion arrived at are justifiable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha) dismissed cross-revision petitions under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging a Family Court, Shivamogga order dated 16.10.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.104/2018, which allowed the wife's Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition and fixed monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/-. The degree-holder wife, though not employed, sought enhancement to Rs.60,000/- alleging the husband earned about Rs.1,00,000/- per month; the husband sought setting aside of the order, pleading two surgeries, loans and a take-home salary of about Rs.19,000/- per month. The Court noted (via Family Court paragraph No.17 / Ex.P20 salary slip, June 2023) the husband's gross salary of Rs.73,226.34/- and take-home of Rs.29,770/-. Holding that the husband is undoubtedly liable to maintain his wife absent proved grounds of disentitlement, that a degree-holding wife can find a job to earn some amount though not the entire maintenance sum, that the Family Court had weighed the totality of facts and circumstances in fixing Rs.15,000/- per month, and finding no grounds of interference nor to set aside the order, both revision petitions were dismissed; the husband was directed to pay all arrears within a period of 4 months.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:6493 RPFC No. 298 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 309 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 298 OF 2024 C/W

¶7

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 309 OF 2023

¶8

IN RPFC No. 298/2024:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. LATHA W/O SRI.GANGADHAR KOTIYAVAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O 'ANNAPURNA NILAYA' , VINOBA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, SHIVAMOGGA-577204.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. S. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. GANGADHAR KOTIYAVAR, S/O SRI.PARASURAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O SBI, KITTUR BRANCH, BAILAHONGAL(TQ), BELGAGUM DISTRICT-591102.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHAKKI SIDDAVEER, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2023

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6493 RPFC No. 298 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 309 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.104/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA., ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶21

IN RPFC NO. 309/2023:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

MR. GANGADHAR KOTIYAVAR S/O PARASURAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT BANASHANKARI LAYOUT KUMARESHWARI NAGAR DHARWAD-580008

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI. CHAKKI SIDDAVEER,ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

MRS. LATHA, W/O GANGADHAR KOTIYAVAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT ANNAPURNA NILAYA VINOBA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, SHIMOGGA-577204.

¶28

...RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI. S. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.104/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6493 RPFC No. 298 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 309 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Heard Sri.Siddanooru Vishwanatha, learned counsel for the petitioner in RPFC No.298/2024 who is also representing the respondent in the connected matter. Also heard Sri.Chakki Siddaveer, learned counsel for the respondent in RPFC No.298/2024 who is representing the petitioner in RPFC No.309/2023.

¶37

These two revision petitions are the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Family Court, Shivamogga in Crl.Misc.No.104/2018 dated 16.10.2023.

¶38

For the sake of convenience of discussion,

¶39

parties to the proceedings will be hereinafter referred to as husband and wife.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6493 RPFC No. 298 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 309 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance from her husband. Family Court through the impugned order directed the husband to pay wife a sum of Rs.15,000/per month towards maintenance.

¶43

The version of the wife is that the said sum is grossly low. On the other hand the contention of the husband is that the sum granted towards maintenance is exorbitant.

¶44

It is not in dispute that husband was working as Assistant Manager at State Bank of India as on the date of filing of the petition for maintenance. Equally it is not in dispute that wife is a degree holder.

¶45

Projecting that wife is entitled to a higher sum as maintenance, learned counsel who represents the wife submits that wife though holds a degree is not working. Husband is under obligation to maintain her. Husband has no other burdens as his siblings are working, his father is

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6493 RPFC No. 298 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 309 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

no more and his mother is getting pension. Husband is earning around Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Wife needs at least a sum of Rs.60,000/- for her sustenance. Therefore, allowing the revision petition filed by the wife, a direction may be issued to the husband to pay his wife a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month towards maintenance.

¶49

Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for the husband states that wife is doing job. She suppressed her occupation and laid a false claim. Learned counsel also contends that husband underwent two surgeries and took loans to meet his medical expenditure and thus his take home salary is around Rs.19,000/- per month. Learned counsel states that the net salary which the husband receives is sufficient for him to maintain himself and he cannot pay any amount to his wife as ordered by the Family Court. Learned counsel also states that the amount claimed towards maintenance projecting that wife needs around Rs.60,000/- per month for sustenance is contradictory to

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6493 RPFC No. 298 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 309 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the affidavit given by her disclosing her assets and liabilities wherein she made a clear mention that a sum of Rs.25,000/- is sufficient for her to maintain herself. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the revision petition filed by the husband and set aside the impugned order.

¶53

In reply to the said submission, learned counsel who represents the wife states that husband obtained loan to purchase a car and also obtained personal loan and thus the contention of the husband that he incurred debt for his medical needs is false.

¶54

Family Court at paragraph No.17 of the impugned order made a mention that as per Ex.P20-salary slip of the month June 2023, husband is working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, JP Nagar, Bengaluru and his gross salary is Rs.73,226.34/- and take home salary is Rs.29,770/-. Though not to earn the entire sum required for maintenance, wife who is a degree holder can

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6493 RPFC No. 298 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 309 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

easily find a job at least to earn some amount. By the version of the wife it is clear that holding a degree she is sitting idle and has claimed maintenance. Undoubtedly husband has got liability to maintain the wife unless and until he establishes the grounds which disentitles the wife

¶58

to claim maintenance. However, this Court cannot appreciate the contention of the wife that husband earns Rs.1,00,000/- per month out of which she needs Rs.60,000/- for her sustenance. The Family Court taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances directed the husband to pay his wife a sum of Rs.15,000/per month towards maintenance. This Court does not find any grounds of interference. The observations made by the Family Court and the conclusion arrived at is justifiable. This Court does not find any justification on part of the wife to claim more than the amount granted by the Family Court as maintenance and equally does not find any grounds to set aside the impugned order as sought for

¶59