MRS. K. R. ROOPA vs MR. B. M. MURLIDAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45979
RPFC No. 133 of 2024
R
CNR: KAHC010337892024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 133 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MRS. K. R. ROOPA,
W/O. B. M. MURALIDAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 242, 1ST CROSS,
9TH MAIN ROAD,
RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR,
NAZARBAD MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570 010.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI/SMT. MEGHANA MUDDURANGAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
MR. B. M. MURLIDAR
S/O. LATE MARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 310, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
3RD CROSS,
RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR,
NAZARBAD MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570 010.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S.,ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2023 PASSED

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45979
RPFC No. 133 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010337892024
IN CRL. MISC. NO.390/2022 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
PRL. FAMILY JUDGE, MYSUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PART-HEARD IN
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Ms.Megana Muddurangappa, learned counsel
for the petitioner as well as Sri.Rupesh Kumar.S, learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. This revision petition is the outcome of the
order that is rendered by the Court of II Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in
Crl.Misc.No.390/2022 dated 29.11.2023.
3. Revision petitioner/wife, elder daughter by
name Ms.B.M.Shivani and younger daughter by name
Ms.B.M.Himani filed a petition against the respondent

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45979
RPFC No. 133 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010337892024
invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. The
request of petitioner/wife and elder daughter for grant of
maintenance was rejected. Respondent was directed to
pay younger daughter Ms.B.M.Himani a sum of Rs.8,000/-
per month towards maintenance till her marriage or till
she gets a suitable job. Family Court also directed
respondent to bear entire educational expenses in respect
of the younger daughter Ms.B.M.Himani till she completes
her education. Aggrieved by the order thus passed, wife
file this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
due to harassment of respondent, petitioner/wife was
constrained to leave matrimonial home. Though sufficient
evidence was produced to show that the circumstances at
her matrimonial home drove petitioner to leave the same,
without considering the evidence produced, Family Court
held that petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance.
Learned counsel states that petitioner/wife is entitled to be
maintained by her husband i.e. the respondent herein and

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45979
RPFC No. 133 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010337892024
therefore, setting aside the impugned order, maintenance
to the extent claimed by the petitioner may be granted.
5. The submission that is made by learned counsel
for the respondent on the other hand is that marriage
between petitioner and respondent was solemnized in the
year 1995. They lived together without any disturbance till
2021 i.e., for more than 25 years. Respondent was
attending each and every necessity of the petitioner and
children. Respondent even took loan and purchased a
house site in the name of his wife i.e., the petitioner
herein. Petitioner left the matrimonial home in the year
2021 i.e., during COVID time to take care of her parents
and sister who were suffering with COVID. She failed to
return back despite repeated requests of respondent.
When respondent went and asked petitioner to return
back, she gave complaint to police. Thus, petitioner left
the company of the respondent without reasonable cause
and hence, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
Learned counsel states that exhibiting the same view,

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45979
RPFC No. 133 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010337892024
Family Court rejected the claim of petitioner and thus the
revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Petitioner filed translated copy of the impugned
order. The genuineness of the said translated copy is not
disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. It is not in
dispute that petitioner and respondent lived together for
about 25 years. Respondent succeeded in establishing that
he purchased a house site in the name of petitioner by
obtaining loan. By the evidence produced, it is clear that
the elder child of the parties is working at Bengaluru after
completion of her education. It is not the version of
petitioner that she has taken care of the educational
expenses of petitioner No.2 or that any of her relatives
supported her financially. There is no denial of the fact
that respondent has taken care to impart proper education
upon the elder daughter. It is also brought on record that
respondent took admission for the younger daughter in
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mysuru. So far as the allegation of the
petitioner that she was harassed and she was subjected to

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45979
RPFC No. 133 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010337892024
cruelty by respondent/husband, no substantive proof was
produced to that effect before the Family Court. An
observation was made by the Family Court at paragraph
No.14 of the impugned order that as per the contents of
Ex.R1 - Complaint, petitioner went to her maternal home
to take care of her parents and sister as they contacted
COVID and her father suffered with heart attack. Thus it
cannot be held that due to the attitude of respondent,
petitioner left matrimonial home and went to her maternal
home. Also, undisputedly, as per the contents of Ex.R3
statement given by wife to police, her husband
approached her parents house asking her to return to
matrimonial home. Having considered all these aspects,
Family Court came to a conclusion that petitioner refused
to live with respondent without reasonable cause.
7. The primary object of Section 125 Cr.P.C
corresponding to 144 BNSS is to do social justice, prevent
exploitation, protect vulnerable and uphold human dignity.
However, grant is not automatic. A wife is entitled to get

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45979
RPFC No. 133 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010337892024
an order of maintenance against her husband only if she
meets required criteria prominent of which are:
(i) That her husband neglected or refused to
maintain her.
(ii) That she is unable to maintain herself; and
(iii) That her husband has got sufficient means
to maintain her.
8. When wife fails to meet statutory requirements
or her case attracts disqualifications, her claim is liable to
be rejected. Leaving matrimonial home without
justification and reasonable cause is certainly a
disqualification to seek maintenance from husband.
9. In the case on hand, neither refusal nor neglect
are found. Petitioner failed to establish that there exists
reasonable cause due to which she withdrew from the
society of the respondent. Having discussed all these facts,
Family Court came to a conclusion that petitioner/wife is
not entitled for any maintenance from her husband i.e. the
respondent herein. This Court therefore, does not find any

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45979
RPFC No. 133 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010337892024
grounds to interfere with and to set aside the findings
given. Hence, ultimately this Court holds that this revision
petition lacks merits.
dismissed
Resultantly, the revision petition is .
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9