SRI MANOJ KUMAR S/O MOHANRAO HILALPURE vs SMT POOJA W/O MANOJKUMAR HILALPURE

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 09 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100093 OF 2025
C/W
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100210 OF 2025


IN RPFC NO. 100093/2025

BETWEEN:

SRI MANOJ KUMAR
S/O MOHANRAO HILALPURE
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCU. ASST. PROFESSOR (PRESENTLY NIL)
R/O. RAMANAGAR, CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR,
NOW AT: MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAVIKIRAN P. PAWAR, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

1. SMT. POOJA
W/O MANOJKUMAR HILALPURE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCU. HOUSEHOLD

2. KUM. MANVITA
D/O MANOJKUMAR HILALPURE
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCCU. STUDENT
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER NATURAL MOTHER I.E., PETITONER NO.1













Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.17
15:58:01 +0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



BOTH ARE R/O. BIDAR
NOW RESIDING AT: C/O. BABU RAO BORALE,
SHIVASHANTAVEER NAGAR,
WARD NO.28, KOPPAL,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL 583231.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE.)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
13.11.2024, PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.268/2020, BY THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL, WHEREUNDER
ALLOWED THE MAINTENANCE PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS-WIFE AND DAUGHTER, IN PART, DIRECTING
THE PETITIONER-HUSBAND TO PAY A MONTHLY MAINTENANCE
OF RS.10,000/- IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER NO.1 TILL HER LIFE
AND RS.8,000/- IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER NO.2 TILL SHE
ATTAINS MAJORITY FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.



IN RPFC NO. 100210/2025

BETWEEN:

1. POOJA
W/O. MANOJKUMAR HILALPURE
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

2. KUM. MAANVITA
D/O. MANOJKUMAR HILALPURE
AGE. 7 YEARS, OCC. NIL,

PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR,
R/BY HER NATURAL MOTHER
I.E., PETITIONER NO.1.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



BOTH ARE R/O. NEAR RAM MANDIR,
GULBARAG, NOW RESIDING AT
SHIVASHANTAVEER NAGAR,
WARD NO.28,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

MANOJKUMAR
S/O. MOHANRAO HILALPURE,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR AND PURSUING PH.D.,
R/O. RAMANAGAR, CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR,
NOW RESIDING AT MEHAKAR VILLAGE,
TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR,
...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.VIDYASHRI N. MULIMANI, ADVOCATE.)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13.11.2024, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL, IN CRIMINAL MISC.268/2020 BY
ALLOWING THE PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

ORAL ORDER
RPFC No.100093/2025 is filed by the husband
assailing the impugned order dated 13.11.2024, passed by

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



the Principal Judge, Family Court, Koppal, (for short
‘Family Court’) in Crl.Misc.No.268/2020, whereby the wife
and child have been awarded maintenance amount of
₹10,000/- and ₹8,000/-, respectively. Whereas, RPFC
No.100210/2025 is filed by the wife seeking enhancement
of maintenance awarded to the wife and child.
2. For convenience, parties are referred to as
husband and wife.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner
and respondent No.1 are the husband and wife. Their
marriage had taken place on 19.02.2017. Through their
marriage respondent No.2 was born. The matrimonial
dispute said to have arose between them since 2019, the
wife and the child are residing separately from the
husband since 2019. When the husband did not take back
them, wife was constrained to file petition under Section
12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
(for short, ‘D.V.Act’) in Criminal Miscellaneous

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



No.525/2019, before the Principal JMFC Court, Koppal.
Husband had filed the petition seeking divorce in
M.C.No.144/2019 before the Family Court, Kalaburagi.
Then the wife filed the suit in O.S.No.6/2020 before the
Family Court seeking injunction against the husband
restraining him from contracting second marriage without
dissolving his first marriage. The husband has failed to
provide maintenance to his wife and child, the wife who is
not in a position to maintain herself and also to look after
her minor daughter, sought for maintenance by filing
Crl.Misc.No.268/2020 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
4. It is contended that, the husband is working as
an Assistant Professor and pursuing his Ph.D. in Birla
Campus, Goa and getting ₹50,000/- fellowship. He also
owns landed properties and he is having more than
₹2,00,000/- income every month. Respondents No.1 and 2
for their livelihood required ₹50,000/- per month. After
filing the petition in Criminal Miscellaneous No.268/2020

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



seeking maintenance and in response to the notice issued,
the husband appeared through advocate and also filed
statement of objections.
5. In the objections, the husband has contended
that, he has not at all subjected his wife to any kind of
harassment and she herself without any reason used to
quarrel with him and without informing him she would
always used to go out of the home. It is further contended
that, it is true that he is admitted for Ph.D. at Birla
Campus, Goa. However, he denies that his monthly
income is ₹50,000/- and denied that he has also landed
properties.
6. The wife examined herself as PW1 and got
marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P22. She was also
subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for
husband. However, the husband has not led his evidence
before the Family Court in the said miscellaneous petition.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



7. The Family Court, after hearing and going
through the records proceeded to pass the impugned
order, allowing the petition filed by the wife in part,
ordering that she is entitled for ₹10,000/- and the child is
entitled for ₹8,000/- towards monthly maintenance from
the husband from the date of petition. It is ordered that
the child is entitled for maintenance till she attains the age
of majority.
8. Being aggrieved by the said impugned
judgment dated 13.11.2024, the husband has preferred
the present revision petition on the ground that, he has
not committed any cruelty against her and she is a BE
graduate and gainfully employed in a software company.
She gained rich experience in the working field and
earning handsome salary. She did not declare her assets
and liabilities. Without appreciating the same, the Family
Court has awarded maintenance to wife which she is not
entitled. It is also contended that, she has not disclosed

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



the truth before the Court that she is employed and she
has filed false affidavit against her, the husband has filed
application for perjury.
9. Further it is contended that now the husband is
not at all earning any money. Therefore he could not pay
maintenance to the wife. However, it is submitted that he
being the father of the child, is ready to pay maintenance
to her. Therefore, learned counsel for the husband
contended that the petition filed by him be considered by
setting aside the impugned order passed by the Family
Court as against the award of maintenance to the wife.
10. Heard the arguments of Sri Ravikiran P. Pawar,
learned counsel for husband and Sri Subhash J. Baddi,
learned counsel for wife. Perused the material placed
before the Court.
11. Learned counsel for the husband argued that,
though the husband has completed Ph.D., he is not
working because of the harassment given by the wife and

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



she has registered several criminal cases against him, and
thereby he has been branded as criminal and the company
is not providing any job. Whenever he applies for the job,
then the police verification will be done and as per the
police verification, there are many number of criminal
cases filed against him by the wife. Therefore, learned
counsel for the husband submitted that he is literally
unemployed. He is not even getting any job to maintain
the wife and child. Further, learned counsel for husband
has also contended that, as per the order of the Family
Court, whatever the amount of maintenance paid by him,
it is not from his account, but he has paid through his
father’s account. Therefore, it is contended that as he is
now unemployed and hence, he could not pay
maintenance to the wife.
12. On the contrary, learned counsel for the wife
contended that the husband has suppressed the facts and
he is doing the job, but the wife could not trace out or

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



locate where he is doing the job and what is his income. It
is contended that looking into his qualification, he being
the Ph.D. holder and his earning is more than ₹2,00,000/-
per month and therefore, learned counsel for the wife
contended that apart from the job of the husband, he is
also having landed properties and she has produced the
documents as Exs.P11 to P14 and P21 to P22. Therefore,
learned counsel for the wife contended that the husband
having handsome salary as well the landed properties, the
maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court which
is very meager and prayed for enhancement of the
maintenance amount.
13. Having heard the learned counsels for the
respective parties, as the wife is not able to produce proof
of income of the husband, where he is working, what is his
salary, however as it is undisputed that the husband being
a Ph.D holder, certainly he would have earnings, and he
being the husband has onerous responsibility to maintain,
therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



amount awarded by the Family Court to the wife at the
rate of ₹10,000/- per month is reasonable and thereby the
wife has not made out any grounds to enhance the
maintenance to her. Therefore, insofar as the maintenance
awarded to the wife as ordered by the trial Court is
confirmed.
14. Insofar as the child is concerned, it is submitted
that the maintenance amount awarded to her at the rate
of ₹8,000/- per month appears to be very meager and
therefore this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance
awarded to the child at the rate of ₹8,000/- shall be
enhanced to ₹15,000/- per month, payable from the date
of petition till the date of her marriage.
15. With this direction, the petition filed by the
husband i.e., RPFC No.100093/2025 is dismissed and the
petition filed by the wife i.e., RPFC No.100210/2025 is
partly allowed.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16842
RPFC No. 100093 of 2025
C/W RPFC No. 100210 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020123692025



16. In view of disposal of the petitions, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they
do not survive for consideration.


Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
MRK
Ct-cmu
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5