REKHA W/O NAGENDRA NEGINAHAL vs SRI.NAGENDRA S/O FAKKIRAPPA NEGINAHAL
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100130 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. REKHA W/O NAGENDRA NEGINAHAL
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O GANESH, S/O NINGAPPA GURLHOSUR,
SHUKLA CHAWL, KANTHI ONI,
HAVERIPET, DHARWAD-580008.
2. KUMARI SHRAVANI D/O NAGENDRA NEGINAHAL,
AGE: 04 YEARS, BEING MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, PETITIONER NO.1.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
SRI. NAGENDRA S/O FAKKIRAPPA NEGINAHAL
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR,
R/O: KSRTC SHANTINAGAR DEPOT NO.1,
NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE,
SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI BALAGOUDA A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.28
16:55:54 +0530
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ALLOWING THE PETITION IN PART FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS, BY DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER NO.1 UNDER SECTION 125 OF CRIMINAL
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, AND AWARDING ALIMONY OF
MAINTENANCE OF RS.4000/- PER MONTH ONLY TO THE
PETITIONER NO.2 ETC., PASSED IN CRL.MIS.NO.131/2016, BY
THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD DATED
02.11.2019 AND TO ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY
PETITIONER NO.1 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN
CR.MISC.NO.131/2016 AND TO AWARD THE ALIMONY AMOUNT
OF MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.10,000/- TO PETITIONER
NO.1 FROM THE DATE OF SAID PETITION, BY ALLOWING THIS
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND TO
ENHANCE ALIMONY OF MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONER
NO.2 FROM AWARDED ALIMONY OF RS.4000/- PER MONTH TO
RS.10,000/- PER MONTH.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the wife calling in question
the impugned order dated 02.11.2019, passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad (‘trial Court’, for
short), in Criminal Miscellaneous No.131/2016 filed under
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(‘Cr.P.C.’ for short).
2. Petitioner No.1 is wife of respondent and
petitioner No.2 is their daughter. It is contended that,
petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on
22.05.2005. It is alleged that, the respondent has
demanded dowry in the form of cash, gold and silver
articles. She joined the respondent to lead marital life. She
led 15 days happy marital life with the respondent.
Thereafter he started ill-treating the wife at the instigation
of his elder sister, his elder brother and his wife and
thereby she has been subjected to mental and physical
harassment. The brother and sister of the respondent are
serving in Government Department, Bengaluru. They used
to visit respondent’s house and instigating the respondent
to ill-treat the petitioner. She has tolerated it for some
time.
3. It is contended that, as petitioner No.1 could
not begot issues, the respondent further harassed her and
after the medical treatment, after 10 years of their
marriage petitioner No.2 daughter was born to them.
Thereafter the respondent again ill-treating her for the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
reason that, she gave birth to a girl child and thereby he
has sent her to her parents’ house. She left with no other
alternative had to stay in her father’s house; as the
respondent never turned up to see her or even the child
and the petitioners were completely neglected, they were
constrained to file maintenance petition.
4. It is contended that, the respondent is working
as a Driver in KSRTC and drawing a salary of ₹40,000/-.
Therefore, she has contended that she is entitled for
maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month.
5. After appearance of the respondent, he filed the
statement of objections, wherein he has contended that
the allegations made by her are all false. He has not at all
subjected her to any kind of harassment including dowry
harassment. He never ill-treated her. In fact he himself
took her for medical treatment and after he spent a sum
of ₹4,00,000/- taking loan for providing medical treatment
to her, thereafter petitioner No.2 was born.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
6. Further it is alleged that when she was in
matrimonial house, she was not even attending any
household work and was not providing proper food to the
respondent and she always used to visit her parents’
house without any valid reasons; at the instigation of her
parents, she herself continued ill-treatment on the
respondent. Further respondent has contended that, she
herself willfully refused to join him by resuming marital life
without any justifiable reasons and further he has also
contended that, he is suffering from many ailments like
blood pressure, sugar and he is getting only meager salary
which is not sufficient for his own maintenance. Further it
is contended that, petitioner No.1 has been doing tailoring
work and getting ₹300/- to ₹500/- per day. Therefore,
respondent contended that, petition may be dismissed.
7. Before the trial Court, the first petitioner herself
examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1
to P17. On behalf of the respondent, he himself examined
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
as RW1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to R30. The
trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record,
has proceeded to pass the impugned order, whereby the
maintenance petition filed by the petitioners has been
partly allowed and the claim of maintenance by petitioner
No.1 is rejected and maintenance to petitioner No.2 is
awarded at ₹4,000/- per month from the date of petition
till she gets married, vide impugned order dated
02.11.2019.
8. Heard the arguments of Sri R.H.Angadi learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Balagouda A. Patil
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the original
records.
9. The point that arises for consideration in this
petition is as under:
Whether the impugned order of the trial
Court is arbitrary, perverse and calls for
interference by this Court?
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that
the respondent being the husband of petitioner No.1, he
had to maintain his wife and in the matrimonial home he
used to harass her, thereby she was forced to leave the
matrimonial house and residing in her parental house. The
trial Court rejected the maintenance to the wife on the
ground that, she herself left the matrimonial house.
Further it is contended that, because of the alleged
harassment by the husband, she left the matrimonial
house. Therefore, it is contended that there are reasons to
leave the matrimonial house by the wife and the trial
Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record
erroneously came to the conclusion that, she herself left
the matrimonial house and she is not entitled to any
maintenance.
11. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by
the trial Court, the trial Court taking into consideration
Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., where it provides the wife is not
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
entitled to any maintenance when she refuses to live in
the matrimonial house without any sufficient reason,
passed the order rejecting the claim of the wife.
12. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners
argued that, in the impugned judgment passed by the
Trial Court, it has made a mention about the conciliation
proceedings and even in the proceedings i.e., in order
sheet the trial Court has mentioned that, despite the
husband asked her to rejoin, she refused to join the
husband.
13. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that, the trial Court at the time of conciliation
proceedings what transpired between the parties had
taken note of it and which is reflected in the order of the
trial Court, which the trial Court ought not to have
recorded the said conciliation proceedings. Learned
counsel for the petitioners argued that, because the trial
Court after going through the conciliation proceedings as
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
she refused to join the matrimonial house, it prejudiced
the mind of the trial Court in coming to the conclusion that
the wife is not entitled for the maintenance. Learned
counsel argued that, the observation made by the trial
Court while taking what transpired at the time of
conciliation proceedings is absolutely erroneous.
Therefore, it is contended that the wife is entitled for
maintenance.
14. Further learned counsel for the petitioners
argued that, the trial Court has also observed in the
impugned order stating that, in her evidence she has
stated that during the course of the matrimonial house the
husband subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The
trial Court has observed that, insofar as mental and
physical cruelty the petitioner wife has not filed any
complaint before the police. The trial Court by observing
so rejected the maintenance petition. Learned counsel for
the petitioners contended that, firstly because the trial
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
Court has observed in the impugned order about the
conciliation proceedings, then the trial Court has also
observed that, the wife has not filed any complaint against
the respondent husband. Those observations made by the
trial Court, which are not justifiable reasons to disallow the
maintenance to the wife and therefore it is contended that,
the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the
maintenance. Hence, argued that she may also be entitled
for maintenance by setting aside the impugned order.
15. Further learned counsel for the petitioners
argued that, insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the
trial Court has granted only ₹4,000/- per month towards
maintenance which is very meager amount because the
respondent who is working in the KSRTC and is getting a
salary of ₹40,000/- per month and petitioner No.2 being
the daughter, she is going to school and she requires
sufficient maintenance to maintain her all requirements.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners contended
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
that, insofar as maintenance awarded to petitioner No.2
needs to be enhanced.
16. On the contrary, learned counsel for the
respondent/husband argued that he never neglected
petitioner No.1 and he himself provided all comforts to her
and took her to hospital, spent more than ₹4,00,000/- and
after IVF treatment, they got the child. Further he has
contended that, the wife herself left the matrimonial
home. He invited her by taking a separate residence and
despite all his efforts she did not join the matrimonial
home. Now he (respondent) has obtained the decree of
divorce in M.C.No.76/2021 on the file of Family Court,
Dharwad, by order dated 08.04.2024. In the said divorce
proceedings she herself appeared in person but she has
not contested the petition and ultimately the respondent
has obtained the divorce from her.
17. Further it is submitted that as against the order
of divorce decree, she has not challenged the same as on
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
today. Therefore learned counsel for the respondent
argued that, the trial Court after taking into consideration
of all these factors proceeded to pass the impugned order
which does not call for any interference.
18. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Mrs.K.R.Roopa vs.
Mr.B.M.Murlidar, in RPFC No.133/2024, decided on
25.08.2026 .
19. On going through the evidence of PW1, in her
evidence though she has stated that the respondent
during the matrimonial home has subjected her to cruelty,
but she has not stated what kind of cruelty she was
subjected. Further she has admitted that, the respondent
called her to join matrimonial house but she only stated
that as he is harassing, she is not intended to join him. It
has also come in the evidence that, petitioner No.1 has
given a letter to the higher officer of the respondent as per
Ex.P9, wherein she has made allegations against the
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
brother and sister of the respondent, except saying that if
she joins the respondent then he will again harass her and
there is a life threat to her and therefore, she does not
intend to join with him.
20. The trial Court after discussing the evidence on
record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the wife
despite of all efforts made by the husband to join the
matrimonial life, she is not inclined to join with him.
Therefore, as provided under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.
and further in the judgment relied by the learned counsel
for the respondent, the wife who herself deserted the
company of the husband and matrimonial home, is not
entitled for grant of any maintenance. The trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has come
to the right conclusion that she is not entitled for any
maintenance.
21. At this juncture, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that, even the divorced wife is also
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
entitled for maintenance, which is not in dispute. She is
entitled for the maintenance even after the decree of
divorce. That is not the question here to decide. Insofar as
maintenance to the child is concerned, looking into the
salary of the respondent and now it is stated that, the
child is aged 11 years and she is a school going child, she
requires more amount than ₹4,000/- per month. Therefore
the maintenance to the child is enhanced to ₹10,000/- per
month.
22. Further it is also brought to the notice of the
Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
respondent has not paid maintenance. Therefore,
respondent is directed to pay full arrears of maintenance.
23. With this observation, the present petition is
liable to be disposed of by answering the point for
consideration. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the
following:
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17116
RPFC No. 100130 of 2019
CNR: KAHC020149332019
ORDER
The revision petition is partly allowed .
The impugned order dated 02.11.2019,
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dharwad, in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.131/2016 rejecting maintenance to the wife
is confirmed. The maintenance awarded to the
child is modified directing the respondent to
pay maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per
month to petitioner No.2 from the date of this
order.
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.: 32