Karnataka High Court
Rudrayya C Kalawadmath vs Shwetha Kalawadmath on 21 April, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819
RPFC No. 100050 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023
RPFC No. 100014 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100050/2025
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100911/2023
(482 OF CR.PC/528 OF BNSS)
REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100014/2026
IN R.P.F.C NO.100050/2025
BETWEEN:
RUDRAYYA C. KALAWADMATH,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER IN GOVT.
PU COLLEGE, H.NO.G-1 VARADA APARTMENT,
KALYAN NAGAR, DHARWAD.
PRESENT ADDRESS: MADAGONDANAHALLI ROAD,
GANGADHARPURA, DODBALLAPUR,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN PH: 8660498756.
RUDRAYYA KALMATH ...PETITIONER
Location: High Court
of Karnataka, Dharwad (BY SRI RUDRAYYA C. KALAWADMATH-PARTY IN PERSON)
Bench.
AND:
SHWETHA KALAWADMATH,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
C/O. G. S. TORGALMATH,
JANANI BUILDING, PAWAN PARK,
SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD-580007.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RANJITA ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE.)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819
RPFC No. 100050 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023
RPFC No. 100014 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS R.P.F.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
28.02.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.295/2021 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.
IN CRL.P.NO.100911 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI RUDRAYYA
S/O. CHANDRASHEKARAYYA KALAWADMATH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT
LECTURER GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,
RESIDENT OF G-1, VARADHA APARTMENT,
1ST CROSS, KALYANAGAR, DHARWAD-580003,
WORKING AT: KONAREDDY PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
CHILAKAWAD VILLAGE, NAVALAGUND TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-582208.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RUDRAYYA C. KALAWADMATH-PARTY IN PERSON.)
AND:
SMT. SHWETHA W/O. RUDRAYYA KALAWADMATH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE,
OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT LECTURER
GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,
R/O. G-1, VARADHA APARTMENT
1ST CROSS, KALYANAGAR, DHARWAD-580023,
PRESENTLY R/AT. C/O. G. S. TORAGALMATH,
JANANI BUILDING, PAWAN PARK,
NEAR SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD-580008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RANJITA G. ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 12 READ
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819
RPFC No. 100050 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023
RPFC No. 100014 of 2026
HC-KAR
WITH SECTION 18, 19, 20, 22 OF THE PROTECTION WOMEN
FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005, IN CRL.MISC NO.56 OF
2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN R.P.F.C.NO.100014/2026
BETWEEN:
SHWETA W/O. RUDRAYYA KALWADMATH,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORKS,
R/O. G-1, 1ST CROSS, VARAD APARTMENT,
KALYAN NAGAR, NOW R/O. G. S. TORAGALMATH,
R/O. JANANI BUILDNG, PAVAN PARK,
NEAR SADHANKERI, DHARWAD-580007.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RANJITA G. ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
RUDRAYYA S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAYYA KALWADMATH,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. COLLEGE LECTURER,
R/O. G-1, 1ST CROSS VARADA APARTMENT,
KALYAN NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008.
...RESPONDENT
THIS R.P.F.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ADMIT THE REVISION
PETITION, CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION
PETITION BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
DHARWAD, IN CRI.MISC.NO.295/2021, BY ENHANCING THE
MAINTENANCE AMOUNT FROM RS.15,000/- P.M. TO RS.30,000/-
P.M. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819
RPFC No. 100050 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023
RPFC No. 100014 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
RPFC No.100050/2025 is filed by the petitioner/party- in-person Mr.Rudrayya C. Kalawadmath, questioning the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc. No.295/2011, by the Family Court, Dharwad, thereby the Family Court, has granted maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife.
2. Crl.P.No.100911/2023 is filed by the petitioner/party-in-person Mr.Rudrayya C. Kalawadmath, praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated under Section 12 read with Section 18, 19, 20, 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in Crl.Misc.No.56/2022, pending on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad.
3. RPFC No.100014/2026 is filed by the wife praying for enhancement of maintenance granted by the Family Court, Dharwad, in Crl.Misc.No.295/2021. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. The parties in these proceedings are referred as petitioner party-in-person for husband and respondent wife for wife for easy reference and convenience.
5. The respondent wife is legally wedded wife of the petitioner party-in-person and their marriage was solemnized on 15.04.2019 at Shri Guru Kottureshwar Kalyan Mantap, Near Terugadde, Kottur, as per their customs and rituals prevailing in their community. There is no dispute that the petitioner party-in-person is husband of respondent wife. Initially for a quite some time they have led marital life, but thereafter the relationship between the petitioner party-in-person and respondent wife was soared. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner party-in- person was abusing the respondent wife in filthy language and in abusive words and also given ill-treatment both mentally and physically and driven out the respondent wife from the house. Therefore, the respondent wife started to reside separately from the petitioner party-in-person and the respondent wife has filed petition under Section 125 of -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), against the petitioner party-in-person for seeking maintenance before the Family Court, Dharwad. Also the respondent wife has filed petition in Crl.Misc.No.56/2022 under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('PWDV Act' for short) invoking Section 12 read with Section 18, 19, 20, 22 for various reliefs.
6. The Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.295/2021 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has granted maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent wife from the date of petition till her life time. The learned Magistrate acting under the provisions of PWDV Act has granted an order of interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month against which the petitioner party-in-person has preferred Crl.A.No.73/2022 before the III Additional District Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad and the said appeal came to be dismissed.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR
7. The petitioner party-in-person has filed Crl.P.No.100911/2023 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.56/2022 initiated under the provisions of the PWDV Act.
8. The respondent wife has filed RPFC No.100014/2026 for seeking enhancement of maintenance.
GROUNDS RAISED AND SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER/PARTY-IN-PERSON:
9. The petitioner party-in-person has argued much making allegation against the respondent wife and against her counsel. Even the petitioner party-in-person went to the extent of scolding the advocate for respondent wife Smt.Ranjita G. Alagawadi, which is totally unwarranted. The Court has considered the grounds raised in the petition with summarizing.
10. The petitioner party-in-person has stated that his salary was Rs.39,000/- and he has produced the salary -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR certificate and also loans are availed and documents were produced to the Family Court, but the Family Court has erroneously held that the salary was Rs.75,000/- per month. Therefore, argued that it is contrary to the evidence on record. Further raised ground and submitted that he had availed loan and he is obligated to pay installments towards loan and he is receiving meager income. Therefore, he has preferred criminal appeal against the interim order granted by the learned Magistrate under the provisions of PWDV Act and the District Court has reduced the interim maintenance to Rs.5,000/- per month. Then petitioner party-in-person has entered into settlement and the matter was settled for Rs.9,50,000/- and as per the condition of settlement, both have filed mutual divorce in M.C.No.243/2023 but the wife started demanding the said amount and tried to assault him and made several allegations against him.
11. Further urged the ground and argued that the Family Court did not allow the petitioner party-in-person to -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR lead evidence and not given opportunity to lead evidence and made complaint to higher authorities.
12. Further urged the ground and argued that the respondent wife has left the matrimonial home voluntarily on 15.10.2021 and in fact the respondent wife has neglected to look after the petitioner party-in-person and the respondent wife has started to make allegations and also filed several false cases.
13. Further the petitioner party-in-person urged the ground and argued that the Family Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the petitioner party-in-person is receiving salary of Rs.68,105/- without taking deduction of amount towards loan transactions.
14. Further urged the ground and submitted that the respondent wife has filed multiple maintenance cases to harass the petitioner party-in-person and also initiated Crl.Misc.No.56/2022 under the provisions of PWDV Act
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR which is nothing but harassing the petitioner party-in- person.
15. Further urged the ground and submitted that the allegation made in Crl.Misc.No.295/2021 is all false and frivolous and there is no evidence in that regard and he has been falsely implicated in the case.
16. Further, the petitioner party-in-person has urged the ground and submitted that respondent wife is educationally well qualified, did her education in M.A., D.Ed. and worked in Taralabalu Primary School as a Teacher prior to marriage and rejected many opportunities as Teacher which were arranged by him for her. Further, the petitioner party-in-person has urged the ground and argued that respondent wife has menstrual problem and the petitioner party-in-person has taken her to gynecologist and she was told that her uterus is damaged. Therefore, this health problem of the respondent wife was not told to the present
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR petitioner party-in-person before marriage. Thus, the respondent wife has cheated the petitioner party-in-person.
17. The petitioner party-in-person has made several allegations in the grounds urged in the petition.
18. Further, the petitioner party-in-person has urged ground and argued that the petitioner party-in-person has not snatched the phone of the respondent wife but it was the maternal uncle who took her phone and made allegation that the respondent wife was exchanging adulterous messages with other person. Therefore, requested the Court to refer to the Cyber Police for investigation and to get call history and whatsapp messages.
19. Further the petitioner party-in-person has raised ground and argued that a petition came to be filed in Crl.Misc.No.408/2023 seeking maintenance and also Crl.Misc.No.56/2022. In Crl.P.No.73/2022 wherein he preferred appeal on the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.56/2022, the matter got settled in National Lok
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR Adalath on 08.07.2023 and after settling the matter she filed another maintenance case in Crl.Misc.No.408/2023 before the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad and in that case also she is receiving maintenance. Therefore, without considering these maintenance cases, pending in other Court and though he informed to the Court, the Family Court has granted maintenance amount which is arbitrary, illegal and not justifiable.
20. Further urged the ground and argued that, the respondent wife is defaming the family of the petitioner party-in-person. Therefore, on all these grounds raised, he has argued much in the petition by taking considerable amount of time of the Court.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT:
21. During the course of argument, the petitioner party-in-person even has also dared to make allegation against the learned advocate for the respondent wife
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR professionally and also the petitioner party-in-person has sent several complaints to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka and also to the other Judges whenever the order went against him. Therefore, the Court found that the petitioner party-in-person has taken judiciary as a right granted.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT/WIFE:
22. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife submitted that the petitioner/party-in-person has caused much harassment to the respondent/wife and in spite of the order passed by this Court on 13.11.2025, the petitioner/party-in-person has not paid the maintenance amount. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife has brought to the notice of this Court of the orders passed on 13.11.2025 and 16.12.2025 and how the petitioner/party- in-person is adamant in misconstruing the order passed by this Court and also brought to notice the conduct of the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR petitioner/party-in-person before the Family Court, which is recorded in the order sheets of the Family Court.
23. Further, the learned counsel for respondent/wife has drawn the attention of this Court to the various complaints made before the higher authorities and even at one point of time, the petitioner/party-in-person has made comments upon the professionalism of the advocate while arguing the case on behalf of the respondent/wife. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife submitted that the petitioner/party-in-person has taken the entire Court process, Judicial Authority and various proceedings for granted and such conduct of the petitioner/party-in-person amounts to abuse of process of Court and causes harassment to the respondent/wife.
24. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner/party- in-person is a Lecturer in a Government Pre-university College at Doddaballapur and is receiving a salary of Rs.89,000/- per month. Therefore, the maintenance of
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR Rs.15,000/- per month ordered by the Family Court is proper and justified as least this amount is necessary for survival in society. It is further submitted that filing of criminal petition seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 20051, itself amounts to abuse of process of Court and none of the grounds made out so as to warrant quashing of the proceedings. It is also submitted that the petitioner/party-in-person has deserted the respondent/wife and driven her out of the house and the respondent/wife is a helpless woman struggling for livelihood to lead a minimally decent life with basic facilities. Hence, prays to dismiss RPFC No.100050/2025 and Criminal Petition No.100911/2023 with costs and to allow RPFC No.100014/2026.
25. After hearing the arguments from both sides and upon perusal of the records made available to this Court, the following points that arise for consideration is: 1
Hereinafter referred to as the 'PWDV, Act'
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819
RPFC No. 100050 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023
RPFC No. 100014 of 2026
HC-KAR
i) Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the petitioner/party-in-person makes out sufficient grounds so as to interfere with the order of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. granted by the Family Court to the respondent/wife?
ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the respondent/wife makes out case for enhancement of maintenance amount as prayed for?
iii)Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the conduct, behaviour and manner in which the petitioner/party-in-person argued the case require initiation of contempt of Court proceedings?
REASONINGS:
26. It is the case of respondent/wife that after marriage, the petitioner/party-in-person driven out the respondent/wife from the house and before doing so,
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR subjected her to cruelty. Therefore, without alternative way, the respondent/wife has filed a petition in Crl.Misc.No.295/2021 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. Also, the petitioner/party-in-person has initiated proceedings under the provisions of PWDV Act.
27. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner/party- in-person is working as a Lecturer in a Government Pre- university College at Doddaballapur. Therefore, admittedly, the petitioner/party-in-person is a responsible Government employee holding a key position in the Educational Department, imparting education to students and is receiving a salary of Rs.89,000/- per month. However, the petitioner/party-in-person has taken several contentions regarding deductions from salary by availing loans and payment of installments, attempting to show that he is receiving lesser salary so as to avoid payment of maintenance or to reduce the maintenance amount payable to the respondent/wife.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR
28. Upon perusal of the salary certificate, it is evident that the petitioner/party-in-person is drawing a salary of Rs.89,000/- per month. In spite of repeated directions by the Family Court to file an affidavit regarding assets, income and liabilities, the petitioner/party-in-person has shown adamant attitude in not filing such affidavit and has disobeyed the orders passed by the Family Court. The petitioner/party-in-person has taken loans and is paying installments, attempting to show that his take home salary is less. However, such an attempt by the party-in-person is nothing but misleading the Court to avoid an award of maintenance or to ensure that only a minimal amount of maintenance to be granted. This conduct of the petitioner/party-in-person clearly reflects malafide intention to cause harassment to the respondent/wife.
29. This Court, on several occasions has held that loan transactions made against the salary account, with a lower net salary being shown, are not grounds for paying a smaller amount of maintenance to the respondent/wife. The
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR attempt made by the petitioner/party-in-person to show a large extent of deductions from the salary is nothing but an effort to create artificial deductions so as to reflect a lower net salary, with an intention of avoiding the payment of a fair amount of maintenance. Such artificial deductions made by the petitioner/party-in-person cannot be considered for granting a lower amount of maintenance.
30. Further, the party in person/petitioner may raise loans for purchasing any immovable and movable properties such as bike, car etc., and any instalments paid towards the discharge of such loan amounts are not grounds for granting a lower amount of maintenance.
31. Upon considering the matter, it is evident that the petitioner/party-in-person has attempted to mislead both the Family Court and this Court, which is nothing but having mala fide intention. This conduct is totally unwarranted and amounts to nothing but harassment to the respondent/wife. Therefore, considering the conduct and
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR behaviour of the petitioner/party-in-person in which he has appeared in the Court with an attitude of taking the Court and judiciary for granted and as a ride is deprecated.
32. Further, the respondent/wife has filed an affidavit of assets, income and liabilities before the Family Court showing that she is only a homemaker and has no income. Also, the respondent/wife has filed an affidavit of assets, income and liabilities before this Court, but on the other hand, the party-in-person/petitioner has not filed an affidavit of his assets, income and liabilities. This shows that the party-in-person/petitioner is trying to hide his real income and assets.
33. Further, when the petitioner/party-in-person filed RPFC No.100050/2025, this Court on 05.06.2025, while considering the interim prayer of the party-in-person in the petition, observed regarding making a settlement between the parties, but it was not materialized.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR
34. It is observed in the said order at Paragraph No.7 that the respondent/wife would undertake to withdraw the proceedings pending before the Family Court, learned Magistrate and before the Sessions Court upon dissolution of their marriage and on payment of money by the petitioner/party-in-person, but this has not materialized. Hence, this is found to be a tactic by the party-in-person on the guise of making a settlement with the respondent/wife to avoid payment of maintenance, but he has successfully obtained an interim order of stay of further proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.295/2021 pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad.
35. Further, this Court on 20.06.2025, has ordered that the petitioner/party-in-person is due and liable to pay aggregate sum of Rs.6,15,000/- as maintenance. For which, the petitioner submitted that he had made part payment pursuant to the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.295/2021 and if the payment so made is adjusted, then he would be liable to pay only a sum of
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR Rs.5,10,000/-. Therefore, this Court directed the petitioner/party-in-person to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Family Court and the interim order of stay granted earlier was extended till the next date of hearing. Further both the parties were directed to file affidavits of assets and liabilities and also to file a memo of calculation regarding arrears of maintenance. Pursuant to the order dated 20.06.2025, on 13.11.2025, this Court noted that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had been deposited by the petitioner/party-in-person before the Trial Court and permitted the respondent to withdraw the same.
36. On 16.12.2025, this Court has observed that based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/wife, it is recorded that the petitioner/party- in-person was paying maintenance in the PWDV case by giving cheques in the name of Shwetha M. M., in which name the bank account stands and not in the name of Shwetha Rudrayya Kalawadmath. However, the petitioner/party-in-person had drawn a cheque in the name
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR of Shwetha Rudrayya Kalawadmath, and not in the name of Shwetha M. M. According to the petitioner/party-in-person, both are different persons. It is his assertion that his wife had solemnized second marriage and changed her name to Shwetha M. M and therefore he is not liable to issue cheque in the name of Shwetha M. M.
37. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife submitted that before marriage, her name was Shwetha M. M. and after marriage, it was changed to Shwetha Rudrayya Kalawadmath and therefore, both names refer to the same person. Considering this, this Court has directed the petitioner/party-in-person, to comply with the maintenance order by paying the amount in the name of Shwetha M. M. Further, it was clarified that the amount should be transferred to Savings Bank Account No.64098825692 IFSC Code:SBIN0040254 irrespective of in whose name the said account stands. Also, the cheque issued by the petitioner/party-in-person dated 15.12.2025 for Rs.15,000/- is returned to the petitioner/party-in-person.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR
38. However, instead of complying, the petitioner/party-in-person again drew a cheque in the name of Shwetha Rudrayya Kalawadmath. The respondent/wife submitted that she does not have a bank account in that name but only in the name of Shwetha M. M., and requested that the cheque be issued accordingly.
39. Considering the repeated orders of this Court, the petitioner/party-in-person clearly demonstrates an adamant intention to violate the Court's directions by issuing cheques in the name of Shwetha Rudrayya Kalawadmath, so as to prevent the respondent from realising the cheque amount. When it is the allegation of the petitioner/party-in-person that the respondent has solemnized second marriage, then the burden lies upon the petitioner/party-in-person to prove the same. However, he has failed to do so and the allegation stands denied by the respondent.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR
40. Despite obtaining an interim order on the condition of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Trial Court, the petitioner deliberately issued cheques in the name of Shwetha Rudrayya Kalawadmath, thereby making a deliberate attempt to prevent the respondent/wife from realising the said cheque amount. Even after clear directions to pay cheque in the name of Shwetha M. M., he issued another cheque dated 01.04.2026 for Rs.15,000/- in the name of Shwetha Rudrayya Kalawadmath. Upon considering these orders and the conduct of the petitioner/party-in-person, it is evident that he has a clear and conscious intention to violate the order passed by this Court, so as to ensure that the respondent/wife is not able to receive any amount. It is nothing but an attempt to make mockery of justice by the petitioner/party-in-person.
41. Earlier, before the Family Court, the petitioner/party-in-person was issuing cheques of Rs.5,000/- in the name of Shwetha M. M., which is part of the record. This itself establishes that Shwetha M. M. and
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR Shwetha Rudrayya Kalawadmath are one and the same person, namely, the wife of the petitioner/party-in-person. Despite this knowledge, the petitioner issued cheques in the name of Shwetha Rudrayya Kalawadmath though no bank account exists in that name. The respondent is having a bank account in the name of Shwetha M. M. Knowing this fully well, the petitioner/party-in-person has played a game before the Court.
42. Further, in M.C.No.273/2022 filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, both the parties have filed a petition for divorce, wherein the name of respondent/wife is shown as Smt. Shwetha wife of Rudrayya Kalawadmath and before marriage her name was Shwetha M. M., daughter of Veerayya. When this being the fact, the petitioner/party-in-person issued a cheque not in the name of Shwetha M. M., in whose name the bank account exists, but issued cheque in the name of Shwetha Rudrayya Kalawadmath, in whose name no bank account exists, with the intention of preventing the respondent/wife
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR from receiving the maintenance amount as ordered by this Court. Therefore, this is nothing but a deliberate and intentional attempt to ensure that the respondent/wife does not receive any amount and amounts to harassment to the respondent/wife.
43. It is noted in the order sheet in Crl.R.P.No.123/2025 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Dharwad, that the respondent/wife, filed a copy of Adhaar Card along with certificate prepared for change of name after marriage. But she was not allowed to update her Adhaar Card details by the petitioner/party-in-person after marriage. These facts further demonstrate that the petitioner/party-in-person has taken the entire Court process, Judicial Authority and various proceedings for granted and such conduct of the petitioner/party-in-person amounts to abuse of process of Court and causes harassment to the respondent/wife
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR
44. Furthermore, the petitioner/party-in-person has been repeatedly writing complaints against Judges, Advocates and others, which are on record. This Court has noted down the conduct and behaviour of the party-in- person during the Court proceedings including raising his voice and making high-pitched submissions, thereby disrupting the smooth functioning of the Court. This conduct of the petitioner is recorded in the order sheets dated 20.02.2026 and 05.03.2026.
45. During the course of arguments, the petitioner/party-in-person has made allegations against the advocate appearing for the respondent/wife, namely Miss.Ranjita G. Alagawadi. He may have so many grievances against his wife, but ought not to have made allegation against the advocate, since advocates present cases based on instructions from their clients. The petitioner/party-in-person has also made allegations against the advocates appearing in the Family Court. Such conduct
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR has compelled this Court to initiate civil contempt of Court against the petitioner/party-in-person.
46. Further, on 05.03.2026, this Court has observed that the matter was substantially heard after spending considerable time and that it is part heard matter. However, the party-in-person is deliberately attempting to delay proceedings by seeking transfer of the case to regular Bench, despite the matter being part-heard. RPFC No.100050/2025 is connected with Crl.P.No.100911/2023 and RPFC No.100014/2026. RPFC No.100050/2025 is filed seeking for setting aside order passed by the Family Court, Crl.P.No.100911/2023 is filed for quashing of entire proceedings initiated under the PWDV Act and RPFC No.100014/2026 is filed by wife seeking for enhancement of maintenance amount by modifying the order passed by the Family Court. All these matters pertaining to the same issues between the same parties, therefore they have clubbed together as per the Rules. However, the petitioner attempted to de-link them without understanding the
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR nature of proceedings. The conduct of petitioner is recorded in detail in the order sheets dated 05.03.2026 and 27.03.2026.
47. Further, the revison petitioner/party-in-person has made allegations against a Hon'ble Judge of this Court, who was conducting these cases and the petitioner/party- in-person used derogatory language against advocates appearing before this Court and the Family Court. The petitioner/party-in-person has also attempted to file complaints before the Karnataka State Bar Council against advocates. The learned counsel for the respondent, Miss. Ranjita G. Alagawadi, submitted that the submissions made before the Court were based on client instructions. Despite this, the petitioner/party-in-person made personal remarks against the advocate. This is nothing but contempt of Court. Advocates are officers of the Court and act on instructions from their clients. Therefore, making personal allegations against them is nothing but contempt of Court. Whatever
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR allegations have been made against the advocate are wholly improper and deprecated.
48. Whenever an allegation is made against the Advocates while the Advocates are discharging their duties professionally according to the instructions given by their clients therefore, the Advocates are appearing before the Court as officers of the Court, but if the opposite party makes any allegation against the Advocate, it is nothing but amounting to contempt of Court.
49. If such actions of the petitioner/party-in-person are allowed, then there would not be free and fair justice. Advocates are integral part of Indian Judiciary system. Any assault on the Advocates, either physically or verbally, is nothing but amounting to scuttling free and fair manner of the judicial process. Therefore, when the Advocate is appearing professionally on behalf of the client, the other party shall not make any derogatory or unwanted remarks against the Advocates. If that is done, it is nothing but
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR amounting to contempt of Court. Just as the Judges are responsible for the dispensation of justice, in the same and equal way, the Advocates have responsibility of duty to assist the Court in the process of dispensation of justice. Hence, any attempt on the part of any party to attack on the Advocate, either physically or verbally, amounts to scuttling the process of free and fair justice.
50. Even the petitioner/party-in-person does not have concern about medical health of the Presiding Officer of the Family Court. The petitioner/party-in-person addressed a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Supreme Court stating that IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, had gone on medical leave for two months and had posted the matter on 07.01.2026 and it is the submission of the petitioner/party-in-person that in the mean time, his case would become weakened. Therefore, he prays to transfer his case to some other Court. This conduct of the petitioner/party-in-person is nothing but assuming himself that everyone and the system shall act
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR according to his whims and fancies. Wherever the petitioner/party-in-person feels inconvenience in the Court proceedings he has the habit of making allegations. This is to be seen from the letter of the petitioner/party-in-person addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Supreme Court, New Dehli, sent through e-mail. Hence, the petitioner/party-in-person is making every attempt to scuttle the proceedings and he is attempting to make the entire judicial process to act according to his tune. Therefore, the above stated mail was sent on 05.11.2025.
51. Further, the petitioner/party-in-person got the matter postponed to 07.02.2026, but on that day, he was absent and it is found that the petitioner/party-in-person wanted the entire proceedings to be conducted according to his whims and fancies and for this, he does not bother about the order passed by this Court, but having malafide intention to harass the respondent/wife.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR
52. In this way, upon considering the conduct, behaviour and submissions made by the petitioner/party-in- person, it is nothing but contempt of Court, for which he is responsible and must face the consequences.
53. Considering the facts involved in the case, admittedly, the petitioner/party-in-person is husband of the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Family Court and the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. This is challenged in RPFC No.100050/2025. The respondent/wife has filed RPFC No.100014/2026 for enhancement of maintenance.
54. Upon considering these two petitions, the petitioner/party-in-person has not filed an affidavit of his assets and liabilities either before the Family Court or before this Court. The respondent/wife, however has filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities before both the Family Court and this Court.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR
55. This Court, as found repeatedly in the order sheet has directed the petitioner/party-in-person to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities, but it has not been filed till today. It is not that the petitioner/party-in-person did not have knowledge of the order passed by this Court to file the affidavit of assets and liabilities. This shows a deliberate and conscious attempt made by the petitioner/party-in-person to hide the facts before the Court and it is nothing but misleading the Court.
56. Admittedly, the petitioner/party-in-person is a lecturer in Government PU college. The petitioner/party-in- person has produced the salary certificate; according to it, the total earning is Rs.68,105/- p.m. as on March 2022. This is discussed before the Family Court in the order.
57. The petitioner/party-in-person produced a salary certificate for the month of March-2022 to show that the gross salary is Rs.68,000/- p.m. and after deductions towards income tax, professional tax, KGID, NPS and
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR regular contribution, the net salary is Rs.54,646/-. Now, in the month of April-2026, definitely the salary would have been increased with proportionate deductions. Hence, in absence of a recent salary certificate of the petitioner/party- in-person, the net pay is assessed at Rs.65,000/- p.m. approximately.
58. When this being the income is proved, the grant of maintenance is Rs.15,000/- by the Family Court to the respondent/wife is found to be meager. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner/party-in-person does not have parents and children and he has one married sister, who is an earning member. Hence, the petitioner/party-in-person is able to give a fair amount of maintenance and considering the present living conditions for sustaining in life and considering that the petitioner/party-in-person is a lecturer in Government PU college, the maintenance amount is assessed at Rs.25,000/- p.m. Hence, the petitioner/party-in-person is entitled to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- p.m. to the respondent/wife.
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR
59. Hence, RPFC No.100050/2025 filed by the petitioner/party-in-person is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- and the maintenance amount is assessed at Rs.25,000/- p.m. payable by the petitioner/party-in-person to the respondent/wife and RPFC No.100014/2026 filed by the respondent/wife is liable to be allowed in part granting maintenance of Rs.25,000/- p.m., as above stated.
60. Criminal Petition No.100911/2023 filed by the petitioner/party-in-person under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying for quashing the proceedings initiated in Crl.Misc.No.56/2022 under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Since the respondent/wife has initiated the proceedings for maintenance and shelter and for other reliefs, the same is to be considered during enquiry before the learned Magistrate. The proceedings initiated by the respondent/wife are for sustaining in life when the allegation is that the petitioner/party-in-person neglected to
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR maintain the respondent/wife. Therefore, the petition filed for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/party-in-person is nothing but misconceived. Hence, the criminal petition filed is just to cause harassment to the respondent/wife. The petition filed for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS does not demonstrate what is to give effect to the Code also fails to prove what is abuse of process of the Court and also fails to demonstrate what is to secure the ends of justice in entertaining this petition. Therefore, none of the ingredients are attracted so as to quash the proceedings. Hence, the criminal petition filed is not found to be having merit, but the very fact of filing criminal petition before this Court is abuse of process of the Court and causing harassment to the respondent/wife; therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be rejected with cost of Rs.25,000/-.
61. The principle of law summarized to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings by the
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS2, at Paragraph No.102, which reads thus:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
a. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
b. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
c. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same don not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
d. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
e. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
f. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, proving efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
g. Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with male fide
and/or where the proceeding is
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819
RPFC No. 100050 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023
RPFC No. 100014 of 2026
HC-KAR
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
62. As in detail discussed above, the conduct and the manner in which the submissions were being made by the petitioner/party-in-petitioner and making personal remarks against the Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/wife, when she was appearing professionally making allegations is nothing but civil contempt of Court. It is discussed as above that in what manner the petitioner/party-in-person has committed civil contempt of Court. If the party-in-person is allowed to make remarks personally against the Advocate appearing for the other side, then there would not be free and fair judicial proceedings. The Advocates are officers of the Court and the Advocates are also equally responsible as that of Judge in dispensation of justice. Any attempt to make assault on the Advocates either physically or verbally while conducting the proceedings is nothing but an assault on the judiciary itself. Therefore, on this principle, the verbal attack made
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR by the petitioner/party-in-person against the Advocate when the Advocate appearing for the respondent/wife is conducting the case professionally without having any personal attachment either with the petitioner/party-in- person or with the respondent/wife, but making assault on the Advocates is a serious question to be considered by this Court. As above stated, if any party makes attack on the Advocate while discharging their duty professionally in protecting the interest of their client, it is nothing but causing hindrance to free and fair dispensation of justice, inviting an action to be initiated against that party.
63. For which, the petitioner/party-in-person is liable for civil contempt of Court to be invoked under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Hence, hereby it is show causing the petitioner/party-in-person why civil contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against him, for which, one month time is granted to reply to this show cause notice from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Hence,
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR I answer point No.1 in the negative and points No.2 and 3 in the affirmative.
64. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The petition in RPFC No.100050/2025 filed by the petitioner/party-in-person is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-.
ii. The petition in Crl.P.No.100911/2023 filed by the petitioner/party-in-person is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-.
iii. The petition in RPFC No.100014/2026 filed by the respondent/wife is hereby allowed-in-part.
iv. The order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Dharwad, in Crl.Misc.No.295/2021, is modified to the effect that the respondent/wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs.25,000/- p.m. from
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 RPFC No. 100050 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023 RPFC No. 100014 of 2026 HC-KAR the date of filing of criminal miscellaneous petition to till her lifetime or till the respondent/wife solemnizes 2nd marriage.
v. The petitioner/party-in-person is present before the Court while dictating the order. Hence, the Registry is directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner/party- in-person along with copy of the order as to why action for civil contempt of Court shall not be initiated against the petitioner/party-in-person calling upon him to give reply within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
vi. The petitioner/party-in-person shall pay maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- p.m. as ordered above. Otherwise, the respondent/wife is at liberty to take any coercive action as available under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
vii. Whatever the amount deposited by the petitioner/party-in-person before the
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819
RPFC No. 100050 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 100911 of 2023
RPFC No. 100014 of 2026
HC-KAR
Family Court and before the learned
Magistrate, the same shall be released in favour of respondent/wife with proper identification.
viii. Considering the conduct, behaviour and manner in which he made submission, the certificate of granting making appearance as party-in-person to the petitioner is hereby cancelled.
In view of disposal of these petitions, pending interlocutory applications, if any in all these petitions, shall stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK para Nos.1 to 21 PMP para Nos.22 to 28 and para Nos.35 to 47 SRA para Nos.29 to 34 and 48 to end CT-AN/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4