Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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.

- 29 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 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

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.

- 37 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5819 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.