Karnataka High Court
Smt Preeti Vivek Shivappagoudar vs Sri Vivek Shivaputragouda ... on 8 January, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:192
RPFC No. 100176 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REV. PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100176 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PREETI VIVEK SHIVAPPAGOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O. SRI VIVEK S. SHIVAPPAGOUDAR,
RESIDING AT: NO.G, 2 GROUND FLOOR,
KALBURGI SEASONS APARTMENT, VIDYANAGAR,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580021.
2. KUMAR MANVIT SHIVAPPAGOUDAR,
W/O. SRI VIVEK S. SHIVAPPAGOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. G 2, GROUND FLOOR,
KALBURGI SEASONS APARTMENT,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580021.
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL
Digitally signed
by MALLIKARJUN
GUARDIAN I.E., MOTHER
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH SMT. PREETI VIVEK SHIVAPPAGOUDAR.
Location: High
Court of ...PETITIONERS
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI VIVEK SHIVAPUTRAGOUDA SHIVAPPAGOUDAR,
W/O. SRI SHIVAPUTRAGOUDA SHIVAPPAGOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O. NEAR K. H. PATIL STADIUM,
V. D. S. T. C. GROUND MASARI,
GADAG, KARNATAKA-582101.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO SOLE RESPONDENT SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:192
RPFC No. 100176 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.09.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.447/2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 19841, calling in question the order dated 25.09.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.447/2023 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi2, whereby the petition was allowed in part with costs, granting monthly maintenance of ₹12,000/- payable by the respondent to petitioner No.2/child from the date of petition till he attains the age of majority. 1 For short, 'Act of 1984' 2 For short, 'Family Court' -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:192 RPFC No. 100176 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
4. The petitioners' herein filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733, seeking maintenance of ₹35,000/- each per month from the respondent herein, stating that the respondent is the husband of petitioner No.1 and that petitioner No.2 is the son born out of the wedlock between petitioner No.1 and the respondent. It is further alleged that the respondent assaulted and abused the petitioners; therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
5. The Family Court has granted monthly maintenance of ₹12,000/- only to petitioner No.2/child and has rejected the petition filed by petitioner No.1/wife. The reason assigned by the Family Court for rejecting the claim of petitioner No.1 is that she is being maintained by her father and, therefore, does not require maintenance. Such reasoning cannot be sustained. The respondent, being the husband, is duty-bound 3 For short, 'Cr.P.C.' -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:192 RPFC No. 100176 of 2024 HC-KAR to maintain both petitioner No.1/wife and petitioner No.2/child. Merely because the wife is being looked after and maintained by her father cannot be a ground to absolve the respondent of his legal obligation to maintain his wife and child. Therefore, the reason assigned by the Family Court in rejecting the wife's claim for maintenance is erroneous and unsustainable in law.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent is the only son to his parents. Ex.P15 and Ex.P16-RTC extracts show that the respondent and his parents are the owners of 40 acres of land. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to the entire extent of the said land as a prospective share from his parents.
7. It is further submitted that the respondent is a software engineer and an independent contractor. Therefore, the respondent has a sufficient source of income to maintain his wife. However, the Family Court, without considering these aspects, has erroneously rejected the petition for monthly maintenance in respect of petitioner No.1. Considering the -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:192 RPFC No. 100176 of 2024 HC-KAR expenditure at current market rates, it is just and proper to award monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/- to petitioner No.1/wife, while keeping the maintenance granted to petitioner No.2/child intact. Accordingly, the respondent is liable to pay monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/- to petitioner No.1/wife.
8. Hence, the following:
ORDER a. The petition is allowed; b. The order dated 25.09.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.447/2023 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, is set aside; c. The respondent/husband is directed to pay monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/- to petitioner No.1/wife, in addition to ₹12,000/- per month already awarded to petitioner No.2/child by the Court of I -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:192 RPFC No. 100176 of 2024 HC-KAR Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, from the date of petition; d. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20