Karnataka HC Awards Estranged Wife ₹10,000 Monthly Maintenance, Says 24-Year Delay Alone Cannot Defeat Her Claim

In brief

The question

Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the maintenance petition suffered from illegality, perversity, or error warranting interference in revision.

The court held

The Court answered the framed issue in the affirmative, allowed the revision, and set aside the Family Court’s dismissal.

It also directed

It allowed the petitioner’s Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition and awarded maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from the date she filed her petition before the Family Court; arrears are payable in accordance with law.

01Facts

The petitioner and respondent married in 1992 and lived together for about five years. The petitioner alleged that cruelty compelled her to leave the matrimonial home; she further claimed that the respondent provided some financial support until 2018, then stopped.

pp. 2–4, paras 3.1–3.5

In 2021, she sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., asserting that she had no independent income and that the respondent had sufficient means.

pp. 2–4, paras 3.1–3.5

The respondent denied her allegations and relied on a document styled as a “Bidugade Patra,” said to record a one-time settlement of ₹10,000.

pp. 4–6, paras 4–5.2

The Family Court dismissed the petition, relying principally on that document and the delay in bringing the claim.

p. 6, para 7 · pp. 12–13, paras 20–21

The petitioner challenged that decision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

p. 1

02Issues

i.Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the maintenance petition suffered from illegality, perversity, or error warranting interference in revision.

p. 8, para 11

ii.Whether delay in seeking maintenance, together with the alleged “Bidugade Patra,” justified rejecting the petitioner’s claim.

pp. 12–14, paras 20–23

03Law Applied

Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a remedy for maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself where her husband, despite having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain her.

p. 10, 13, paras 16, 21

The Court relied on the principle that Sections 125–128 Cr.P.C. prescribe no limitation period for initiating a maintenance claim; accordingly, delay alone does not bar the claim.

p. 10, para 16

The High Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

p. 1

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125 Section 126 Section 127 Section 128

04Reasoning

The Family Court had focused on the alleged settlement document and the petitioner’s delay, without properly considering her claim that the respondent had supported her until 2018 and then stopped, or whether she had sufficient reason to live separately and lacked independent means.

pp. 12–14, paras 20–23

Because no limitation period applies, the delay of itself could not defeat her claim. The High Court found that the Family Court had not adequately assessed the material evidence and set aside its decision.

pp. 13–15, paras 21–24, 27

In determining quantum, it considered the respondent’s stated monthly pension of ₹60,000, the petitioner’s circumstances, and the material on record.

pp. 14–15, paras 25–26