SRI POORNESH L.J vs SMT ROHINI

- 1 -
RPFC No. 132 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 06 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 132 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI POORNESH L. J.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O JAGADEESH
R/AT D.NO. LOKAVALLI
MUDIGERE,
CHIKAMGALUR, DISTRICT - 577 132.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIRAM ADIGA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. ROHINI,
W/O POORNESH L. J.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
C/O MADHU W/O N KUMAR
R/AT: NEAR SHANESHWARA TEMPLE
DANTARAMAKKI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 132.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA K.B., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2025
PASSED IN Crl.Misc NO.74/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.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. 132 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV ORDER
This revision petition is the outcome of the order that
is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chikkamagaluru in Crl.Misc.No.74/2022 dated 22.03.2025.
2. As the relationship between the parties is not in
dispute, the revision petitioner will hereinafter be referred
to as husband and respondent as wife.
3. Wife filed a petition which came to be
numbered as Crl.Misc.No.74/2022 seeking the Court to
direct her husband to pay her a sum of Rs.25,000/- per
month towards her maintenance. Family Court, through
the impugned order, directed husband to pay wife a sum
Rs.
of 12,000/- per month towards her maintenance till her
lifetime or till her remarriage and aggrieved by the liability
thus imposed, husband filed this revision petition.
4. Heard Sri.Shriram Adiga learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Smt.Jayalakshmi.K.B learned counsel
for the respondent.

- 3 -
RPFC No. 132 of 2025
5. The case of the wife as borne by record is that
their marriage was registered in the year 2011. However,
it was solemnized in the year 2012. After marriage, they
lived happily for about one month. Her husband took all
her gold ornaments, pledged them, and obtained loan for
his lavish life. Further, he took six blank cheque leafs
belonging to her and misutilised the same. Further, her
husband, his parents, and his sister inflicted mental and
physical cruelty upon her, demanding dowry. Several
panchayats were held and finally, she left the house. Her
father-in-law and one Soma Setty gifted 0.02 guntas of
land in her favour through a registered Gift Deed. Her
husband was always demanding her to subscribe her
signature in order to obtain loan for construction of a
house. The house was constructed, but she was not
allowed to enter the house. She lodged complaint to police
and a criminal case was registered against her husband,
his parents and sister. She started residing at Working
Women's Hostel, Mudigere. But, her husband visited that
hostel, abused her and assaulted her in public. Therefore,

- 4 -
RPFC No. 132 of 2025
she left the hostel and started residing near Shaneshwara
Temple, Chikkamagaluru and there also she was abused
and assaulted by her husband. Her husband maintains a
tailoring shop under the name 'Srinidhi Stitch Wear' at
Mudigere and he has also got agricultural property and
Rs.
thereby he earns more than 1,00,000/- per month.
6. The version of the husband on the other hand is
that himself and his wife lived together for about nine
years with love and affection but his wife used to pick up
quarrel with him and his family members and in the year
2022 she left his company and joined Brahmakumari
Trust. His wife works as teacher in Mangalore and earns
Rs.
30,000/- per month and before that she was running a
computer institute by name MICE at Mudigere. She has
also done beautician course and worked as beautician at
Suratkal, Mangalore. Thus she is having good source of
income to maintain herself. Further, he filed a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending. He
is working as tailor and his income is not permanent and
thus, he is not liable to pay any maintenance.

- 5 -
RPFC No. 132 of 2025
7. With these versions made by both, arguing on
the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that Family Court is not justified in ordering
petitioner/husband to pay respondent/wife huge sum of
Rs.
12,000/- per month. Being a graduate, respondent
Rs.
earns more than 30,000/- per month. Petitioner/
husband as tailor earns very meager amount which is not
sufficient for him to maintain himself and his parents.
Family Court went wrong in quantifying the amount of
maintenance and therefore, this revision petition is filed.
Learned counsel thereby seeks to reduce the sum by
modifying the impugned order.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that petitioner took away all the
gold ornaments of the respondent/wife, pledged them and
spent the amount for his lavish life. Further, he took six
blank cheques of respondent/wife and gained wrongfully
through those cheques. Sufficient evidence was produced
to show those acts of petitioner/husband. That apart,
petitioner/husband is residing in the house which

- 6 -
RPFC No. 132 of 2025
exclusively belongs to respondent/wife. Respondent/wife
has no source of earnings whatsoever and thus, it is the
liability of petitioner/husband to maintain her. Thus, the
revision petition is devoid by merits.
9. Through Exs.P5 to P11 and P15,
respondent/wife established that petitioner/ husband
pledged the gold ornaments and obtained loan from pawn
brokers. Also, through Ex.P4-RTC extract, respondent/wife
established that 19 guntas of land mentioned therein
stands in the name of petitioner/ husband. Family Court at
para 15 of the impugned order made a clear mention that
the petitioner/husband admitted that the house property
standing in the name of respondent/wife exclusively
belongs to her but he is residing in the said house. Though
petitioner/husband contended that respondent/wife works
Rs.
as teacher and earns 30,000/- per month, no
substantive proof was produced to that effect. Likewise he
failed to establish that respondent/wife was running a
computer institute that she had done a beautician course
and worked as beautician at Suratkal, Mangaluru.

- 7 -
RPFC No. 132 of 2025
Petitioner/husband admits his occupation that he is a tailor
by profession. Though respondent/wife could not establish
the earnings of petitioner/husband, taking into
consideration his occupation, this Court is of the view that
Rs.
petitioner/ husband can easily earn at least 750/- to
Rs.1,000/- per day through his profession as tailor. His
version is that he has to maintain his parents. Thus, taking
into consideration all these factors this Court is of the view
that petitioner/husband can be directed to pay
Rs.
respondent/wife a sum of 10,000/- per month towards
Rs.
her maintenance. Payment of 12,000/- per month
towards maintenance as ordered by the Family Court is
slightly excessive. Therefore, the revision petition is
disposed of with the following:
ORDER
i. The revision petition is allowed in part.
ii. The order that is rendered by the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chikkamangaluru in Crl.Misc.No.74/2022
dated 22.03.2025, is modified.

- 8 -
RPFC No. 132 of 2025
iii. Petitioner/husband is directed to pay
Rs.
respondent/wife a sum of 10,000/- per
month towards her maintenance and such
amount shall be paid from the date of
filing of Crl.Misc.No.74/2022 till her
lifetime or her remarriage or this order is
modified by the Competent Court.
iv. The order in respect of annual
enhancement shall remain in force.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DS
CT:TSM