Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sulochana W/O Pradeepkumar Malagi vs Pradeepkumar Ramu Malagi on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942
RPFC No. 100212 of 2023
C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100212 OF 2023 (-)
C/W
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100016 OF 2024
IN RPFC NO. 100212 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. PRADEEPKUMAR S/O. RAMU MALAGI,
AGE. 53 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO.61
SHREERAM COLONY,
3RD STAGE, HANUMAN NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
1. SMT. SULOCHANA
MALAGALADINNI W/O. PRADEEPKUMAR MALAGI,
AGE. 46 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK OCC.HOUSEHOLD,
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI R/O. SANKESHWAR,
TQ. HUKKERI,
C/O. SHRI. FAKKERAPPA ROTTIGWAD
R/O. KADASIDDESHWAR COLONY,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
TQ. HUBBALLI - 580023
DIST. DHARWAD.
2. KUM. PRAJWAL
S/O. PRADEEPKUMAR MALAGI,
AGE. 19 YEARS,
OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. SANKESHWAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942
RPFC No. 100212 of 2023
C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024
TQ. HUKKERI,
C/O. SHRI FAKKERAPAP ROTTIGWAD,
R/O. KADASIDDESHWAR COLONY,
KESHWAPUR HUBBALLI,
TQ. HUBBALLI - 580023.
DIST. DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
------
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED ON THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN CRIMINAL MISC PETITION NO.131/2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 04.10.2023, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN RPFC NO. 100016 OF 2024 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. PRADEEPKUMAR MALAGI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI, CURRENTLY AT. C/O. FAKIRAPPA ROTIGWAD, R/O. KADASIDDERSHWAR COLONY, KESHWAPUR,TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD -580030.
2. KUMAR PRAJWAL S/O. PRADEEPKUMAR MALAGI, AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ. HUKKERI,BELAGAVI, CURRENTLY AT. C/O. FAKIRAPPA ROTIGWAD, R/O. KADASIDDERSHWAR COLONY, -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024 KESHWAPUR,TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD - 580030.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
PRADEEPKUMAR RAMU MALAGI AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND CONTRACTOR, R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ. HUKKERI, BELAGAVI, CURRENTLY AT PLOT NO.61, SRIRAM COLONY, 3RD STAGE, HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
-----
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBLI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.131/2019 AND ENHANCE THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT TO Rs.2,00,000/- PER MONTH TO THE WIFE/PETITIONER NO.1 AND Rs.1,00,000/- PER MONTH TO THE CHILD/PETITIONER NO.2 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS MAY PLEASE BE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER.
IN THESE PETITIONS ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD, RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CAV ORDER RPFC No.100212/2023 is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.131/2019, challenging the order dated 04.10.2023 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court'), granting maintenance to the petitioners therein.
2. RPFC No.100016/2024 is filed by the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No.131/2019, challenging the order dated 04.10.2023 seeking enhancement of maintenance.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court.
4. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 21.12.2002 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 is born. It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent is an Engineer and also the First Class Contractor and thatapart doing independent business. It is pleaded in the petition that, the respondent along with his brother, were inhumanly treated the petitioner No.1 while she was carrying the petitioner No.2 to abort the said child and also not providing basic necessity to the petitioner No.1 and as such, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home as the respondent was not treating the petitioner No.1 as a dutiful wife. It is also stated in the petition that, the respondent has contested for Member of Legislative Assembly for Raibag Constituency during 2018 and the petitioners came to know about the same through news paper. It is also stated that, whereabouts of the respondent was not made known to the petitioners. It is also stated that, the petitioners tried to contact the respondent to enquire about the matrimonial life, however, it was replied to the petitioners that, the respondent has not shown any interest to continue the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024 matrimonial life. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners were residing separately from the respondent and accordingly, sought for maintenance from the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.131/2019, as the respondent has neglected the petitioners.
5. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioner No.1 has left the matrimonial home without any cause and also stated that, the petitioner No.1 was adamant and the petitioner No.1 was frequently go to her parental house at Hubballi without any reason. It is also stated that, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was not consummated, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 04.10.2023, allowed the petition in part and awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/-
per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.12,000/- per -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024 month to the petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has preferred RPFC No.100212/2023 and the petitioners have preferred RPFC No.100016/2024 seeking enhancement of maintenance.
7. I have heard Sri. Prashant F. Goudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100212/2023 and Sri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in RPFC No.100016/2024.
8. Sri. Prashant F. Goudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100212/2023 contended that, the Family Court has committed an error in awarding exorbitant maintenance to the petitioners without considering the fact that, the respondent-husband was under severe health issue on account of Kidney problem. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband that, the husband has deserted the wife for about 16-17 years ago and no claim petition was filed during the said period and therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024 filed to harass the petitioner-husband and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
8.1. It also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, perusal of the admissions made by PW1 makes it clear that, the respondent-wife was seeking maintenance unreasonably and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. He also submitted that the respondent-wife has aware that, the petitioner-husband is suffering from Kidney Transplant Surgery due to that, he was unable to do any other avocation and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
8.2. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another1 and in the case of Kuntibai W/o. Alakharam Vs. Alakhram S/o. Jaggulal2, contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court requires to be set aside.
1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 2 1998 (2) M.P.L.J. 635 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024
9. Sri. K. L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in RPFC No.100016/2024 argued that, the award of maintenance made by the Family Court is on the lesser side without considering the escalated prices of basic necessitates required for the petitioners - wife and child. Learned counsel further submitted that, the respondent - husband is a businessman as well as a contractor having independent income through let-out the larger extent of premises and also not bother to take care of petitioners day to day affairs and further petitioner No.1 is also under health ailments, accordingly, sought for enhancement of maintenance.
10. It is further argued by Sri. K. L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that, the respondent-husband has contracted second marriage during 2005 and accordingly, sought for enhancement of maintenance.
11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024 dispute that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 14.12.2002 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is the allegation of the petitioners that, the respondent-husband was pressuring the petitioner No.1 for abortion and also made it clear to the petitioner No.1 that, she has to deliver only a male baby. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that, parties are residing separately. It is the case of the respondent - husband that, the claim petition is filed with inordinate delay and to damage the reputation of the petitioner-husband, however, the said submission cannot be accepted taking into account the scope and ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is also to be noted that, the respondent-husband has contracted with second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage with the petitioner No.1-wife and the said submission was not opposed by the learned counsel Sri. Prashant F. Goudar.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024
12. Taking into account the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Superem Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra), remedy of maintenance is a measure of social justice to prevent wife and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy. It is also to be noted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and Others3, held that the maintenance of wife is for her sustenance and the sustenance does not mean animal existence but signifies leading life in similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. It is also to be noted that, the strict proof of marriage is not a condition president for accepting petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC.
13. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs. State of Telangana and Another4, at paragraph Nos.13 to 15 has held as under:
3
(2015) 6 SCC 353 4 (2025) 2 SCC 49
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024 "13. Numerous decisions of this Court went on to state that Section 125 of CrPC, 1973 is a measure for social justice to protect the weaker sections, irrespective of applicable personal laws of the parties, as contemplated through Articles 15(3) and 38 of the Constitution of India. This Court similarly held in the decision of Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) 2 SCC 386 that the nature of power and jurisdiction vested with a Magistrate by virtue of the instate provision is not punitive in nature and neither it is remedial, but it is a preventive measure. It was also observed that while any such right may or may not exist as a consequence of any of the personal laws applicable to the parties concerned, they shall continue to exist distinctively, and independently as against the secular provision.
14. The purpose of Section 125 of CrPC, 1973 has been spelt out to prevent vagrancy and destitution of the person claiming rights through invoking the procedure established under the said provision. However, in Inderjit Kaur v. Union of India and Others (1990) 1 SCC 344, it was clarified qua the wife that such a right is not absolute in nature and is always subject to final determination of the rights of the parties by appropriate courts. Further emphasis has also been placed on the expression "unable to maintain herself" and that the burden of proof is on the wife to prove the existence of said circumstances
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024 leading to such inability. This is, in addition, to the requirement to establish that the husband has "sufficient means" to maintain her, and is, however, neglecting or refusing to do so.
15. In Fuzlunbi v. K. Khader Vali and Another (1980) 4 SCC 125, it was categorically observed by this Court that enactment of the said provision charges the court with a deliberate secular design to enforce maintenance or its equivalent against the humane obligation, which is derived from the State's responsibility for social welfare. The same is not confined to members of one religion or region, but the whole community of womanhood."
14. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad (supra) and also taking into account the affidavit of assets and liability filed by the petitioner-husband in RPFC No.100212/2023, so also the medical certificate issued by N U Hospital makes it clear that, the petitioner-husband is having health issues, as per the records.
15. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the status of the parties, I am of the view
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3942 RPFC No. 100212 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100016 of 2024 that, the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and no interference is called for in this petition as the Family Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly awarded the maintenance and therefore, no second view be taken to interference or to enhance the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
16. In the result, RPFC No.100212/2023 filed by the respondent-husband and RPFC No.100016/2024 filed by the petitioners-wife and child, are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30