SMT SUNANDA vs SRI RAGHU
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
RPFC No. 188 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER , 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 188 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNANDA
W/O. RAGHU,
D/O LATE RACHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO 70/2A 13TH CROSS
1ST MAIN, B. M. SHI NAGARA,
MYSURU - 570015
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AADISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RAGHU
S/O LATE BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO 3880 3RD CROSS
1ST MAIN GANDHINAGARA
MYSURU - 570 007.
…RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT -SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT,
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
V/O. DATED 11.08.2023)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED
IN CRL.MISC.NO.170/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR
MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
08.10.2026
FOR ORDERS ON , COMING ON THIS DAY,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
- 2 -
RPFC No. 188 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV ORDER
Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is
rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No.170/2020 dated
05.07.2022.
2. Petitioner/wife invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C filed
a petition which came to be numbered as
Crl.Misc.No.170/2020 against respondent/husband seeking
the Court to direct respondent/husband to pay her a sum
of Rs.15,000/- per month towards her maintenance. The
Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Mysuru, subjecting the evidence of Pw.1, Rws.1 to 3, Exs.
P1 to P14 and Exs.R1 to R34 to scrutiny, came to a
conclusion that no positive direction can be issued to
respondent/husband to pay maintenance to the
petitioner/wife and thereby dismissed the petition.
Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
- 3 -
RPFC No. 188 of 2022
3. Heard Sri.Aadish who represented
Sri.Sachin.B.S, learned counsel on record for the
petitioner.
4. Making his submission on the merits of the
matter, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the marriage of the petitioner with respondent was
solemnized in the year 2001. After marriage, respondent
started ill-treating the petitioner and subjected her to
cruelty physically and mentally. Respondent developed
extramarital relationship with another lady. The marriage
between the petitioner and respondent was not
consummated. The petitioner who could not bear the
harassment of respondent, started residing separately.
Respondent works as night Watchman and earns
Rs.15,000/- per month. During daytime he runs a cycle
shop and earns Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, he earns
Rs.30,000/- per month in total. Further respondent is
having a house at Hunsur. On the other hand petitioner
has no source of earning and thus, it is the liability of the
respondent to maintain the petitioner. Family Court
- 4 -
RPFC No. 188 of 2022
rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that
she is financially well-off. However, petitioner has no
source of earnings. Therefore, allowing the revision
petition, setting aside the impugned order, the amount
sought for towards maintenance may be granted.
5. With a submission that a husband is liable to
maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself learned
counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 316
between Chaturbhuj and Sita Bai, the decision in Criminal
Appeal No.1693/2022 between Anju Garg and Another and
Deepak Kumar Garg, the decision of this Court in Revision
Petition Family Court No.96/2021 between
Sri.N.H.Raghavendra Swamy and Smt.N.R.Pavithra, the
decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.3011/2023
between Sri.Harish.R and Smt.Sowmya and Another, the
decision of this Court in RPFC No.136/2013 between
Mr.T.Ramesh and Mrs.Ranjana and Another and also the
decision of the High Court of Allahabad reported in 2022
- 5 -
RPFC No. 188 of 2022
SCC Online ALL 303 between Krishna Devi and State of
U.P and Another.
6. The version of the petitioner/wife is that she
has no independent source of income to maintain herself
and on the other hand her husband i.e. respondent herein
by working as night Watchman earns Rs.15,000/- per
month and by running a cycle shop earns Rs.15,000/- per
month.
7. The respondent/husband took the plea that
petitioner filed a petition seeking decree of divorce and
that petition came to be allowed, but her prayer to grant
permanent alimony was rejected. He also took the plea
that he never subjected the petitioner to cruelty and that
she is not entitled for any maintenance. In the pleadings
filed, petitioner did not state in clear terms her period of
stay with the respondent. The petitioner got examined
herself as Pw.1 and during the course of cross examination
she stated that the married life lasted only for 3 years and
thereafter there was no contact between her and the
respondent.
- 6 -
RPFC No. 188 of 2022
8. Ex.R1-certified copy of Sale Deed dated
12.06.2019, Ex.R2-certified copy of Sale Deed dated
11.09.2012 and Ex.R6-certified copy of Sale Deed are very
relevant to decide the matter on merits. Rw.2-Siddaraju
and Rw.3-Saddalingamurthy who are none other than the
brothers of petitioner/wife deposed before the Court that
the respondent sold his ancestral property which is located
at Hunsur through a registered deed of sale dated
11.09.2012 and out of the sale proceeds he purchased
property situated at 10th cross, Shivayogi Swamy Temple
Road, Gandhinagar, N.R.Mohalla, Mysuru in the name of
petitioner/wife under a registered Sale Deed. They further
stated that petitioner sold said property under registered
Sale Deed dated 12.06.2019 for a sale consideration of
Rs.17,00,000/- but the actual price is Rs.27,00,000/- and
the entire amount of Rs.27,00,000/- was utilised by the
petitioner herself. They also stated that after getting the
sale amount of Rs.27,00,000/- petitioner absconded from
Mysuru City. On that respondent/husband gave a missing
complaint before the concerned police and the police
- 7 -
RPFC No. 188 of 2022
traced out the petitioner. Petitioner who got examined as
Pw.1 as earlier stated, during the course of cross
examination admitted that the property as per Ex.R1 was
sold for Rs.27,00,000/. Though she denied the suggestion
that after the property was sold she was missing from
marital home, she admitted that police called her for
enquiry. Though learned counsel for the petitioner during
the course of submission stated that brothers of the
petitioner i.e. Rws.2 and 3 are not having good terms with
the petitioner and therefore, they gave false evidence
supporting the respondent, the fact that remains is that
petitioner sold the property for Rs.27,00,000/-, obtained
sale consideration, immediately thereafter she was found
missing, respondent/husband gave complaint to police and
in that regard she went to police station also.
9. When the pleadings of the petitioner are looked
into petitioner made general averments that she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment as we find in almost
all cases which are filed claiming maintenance. This Court
does not find any specific averment with regard to any
- 8 -
RPFC No. 188 of 2022
instance or instances that went on between the petitioner
and her husband and in what manner she was subjected
to either cruelty or harassment. Also petitioner failed to
establish that the respondent runs a cycle shop and earns.
She even failed to establish her version that respondent is
having extra marital affair.
10. Taking into consideration all these aspects
Family Court came to a conclusion that respondent cannot
be directed to pay maintenance to the petitioner.
Petitioner failed to establish the aspect of neglect or
refusal by the respondent to maintain her. She also failed
to establish that the respondent stands in a better footing
financially than that of her.
11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there
are no grounds to interfere with the observations made by
the Family Court in the impugned order and the ultimate
conclusion arrived at. Thus, this Court ultimately holds
that the revision petition lacks merits.
- 9 -
RPFC No. 188 of 2022
12. Resultantly, the following:
ORDER
dismissed
The revision petition is .
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM