Karnataka High Court
Pratibha And Anr vs Ajay on 17 September, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522
RPFC No. 200007 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200007 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. PRATIBHA
W/O AJAY KAMBLE,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: H.H.WORK,
R/O: BABALESHWAR,
TALUKA: BABALESHWAR,
DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
2. SANVI
D/O AJAY KAMBLE,
AGE: 09 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
(MINOR REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.1)
by SHIVALEELA ...PETITIONERS
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
AJAY
S/O SHIVAGOND KAMBLE,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: CASHIER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, JAMKHANDI,
TALUKA: JAMKHANDI,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT - 587 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522
RPFC No. 200007 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION
PETITION AND AWARD MAINTENANCE OF RS.25,000/- PER
MONTH FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAPUR IN CRL.MISC. NO.488/2019 DATED
13.10.2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS RPFC, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by petitioners -wife and daughter of the respondent challenging non award of maintenance to petitioner No.1 and award of lower maintenance to petitioner No.2 by the I Additional Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura in Crl.Misc.No.488/2019 dated 13.10.2023.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2 is daughter of the respondent. Petitioners have file petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before family Court seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- for petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000/- for petitioner No.2. It is the case of petitioners that the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522 RPFC No. 200007 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent at instigation of his family members started to torture her and forcing her to bring dowry of Rs.7 lakhs from her parents. When petitioner No.1 expresses her inability to meet out his demand, he started torturing her mentally and physically and deserted her and her daughter during the month of March-2019. They contended that the respondent is working as Cashier in State Bank of India and he getting the salary of Rs.50,000/- per month.
4. The respondent in his statement of objections has denied all allegations made against him. The respondent has admitted relationship. He contended that after the birth of petitioner No.2, petitioner No.1 at instigation of her brothers started to quarrel with him and his family members for silly reasons. The respondent contended that he is having mother aged about 100 years and he has to take care of her. He contended that after the death of his father, he got job at State Bank of India on compassionate ground. He contended that petitioner No.1 is doing tailoring work and also having computer knowledge and getting income of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. He contended that he has filed petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against petitioner. The -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522 RPFC No. 200007 of 2024 HC-KAR family Court recorded evidence of petitioners and respondent and thereafter, passed the impugned order of maintenance to petitioner No.2 in sum of Rs.7,000/- and rejecting claim of petitioner No.1 for maintenance.
5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Family Court, petitioners are before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that petitioner No.1 is left her matrimonial house due to harassment by the respondent. She is not having any income. Family Court has erred in rejecting the claim of maintenance of petitioner No.1 only on the ground that she insisted the respondent to make separate house to reside separately from his mother and she has left matrimonial house voluntarily without any reason. He contended that the respondent is getting salary of Rs.67,000/- as per his pay slip -Ex.P3. Considering the same, maintenance in sum of Rs.7,000/- per month is on lower side. With these, he prayed to modifying the order passed by the Family Court by awarding maintenance to petitioner No.1 and award maintenance higher than awarded by family Court to petitioner No.2.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522 RPFC No. 200007 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that evidence of P.W.1 indicate that she is insisting the respondent to make separate house to reside separately from his mother with petitioners and she has left matrimonial house voluntarily without any reason. He submits that considering the said aspect, the family Court has rightly rejected the claim of petitioner No.1. He further submits that considering the age of petitioner No.2 and salary of respondent No.2, the family Court has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to petitioner No.2. With these, he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused impugned order and trial Court records.
9. Relationship between parties is not in dispute. Petitioner No. 1 is wife and petitioner No.2 is daughter of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that respondent is working as cashier in State Bank of India.
10. On reading chief examination of P.W.1 and entire cross examination, it is clear that petitioner No.1 has left her matrimonial house as she was harassed by her mother in law and demanding cash and gold ornaments and also she has been harassed by the respondent at the instigation of his family -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522 RPFC No. 200007 of 2024 HC-KAR members. The Family Court considering some portion of cross examination of P.W.1 has erred in holding that petitioner No.1 voluntarily left matrimonial house without any reason. Considering entire evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that P.W.1 has left her matrimonial house due to harassment made by the respondent. Therefore, petitioner No.1 is entitled for award of maintenance.
11. Ex.P3 is salary slip of respondent No.2 for the month of January 2020 and his gross salary is Rs.50,040/- and his net salary is Rs.27,099/- after compulsory deductions i.e., PF and also loan installments and LIC premiums. Compulsory deductions, PF and professional tax comes to Rs.6,600/-. Considering the said fact, the respondent is getting net salary of Rs.43,400/-.
12. Petitioner No.2 was aged 04 years as on the date of petition. Considering the said fact, award of maintenance in sum of Rs.7,000/- to petitioner No.2 is just and proper. So far petitioner No.1 is concerned as she is wife of cashier of State Bank of India and to lead life as such she is entitle to maintenance in sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522 RPFC No. 200007 of 2024 HC-KAR
13. In view of the above, the following ORDER
i) The Revision Petition is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned order passed by the Family Court rejecting the claim of petitioner No.1 awarding of maintenance is set aside.
iii) Petitioner No.1 is entitled maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of petition.
iv) The award of maintenance in respect of petitioner No.2 in sum of Rs.7,000/- is remained unaltered.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48