Kum. Disha P v. Sri Pradeep S/O Raju

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 103 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

¶1KUM. DISHA P., AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.2

¶2SMT. PUSHPA Y.M., W/O PRADEEP AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O YELWALA VILLAGE MYSURU-571 130 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT.P.V.KALPANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI.PRADEEP S/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AT J.K.TYRES R/O DOOR NO.281 RAMAMANDIRA ROAD PUMP HOUSE, HOSAHALLI SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHU M.N., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, R/W SEC.19(4) FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

07.11.2019 PASSED IN CRL.MIS.NO.295/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C.IN TIME.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.295/2017 by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶2The parties are referred to as husband, wife and child for the sake of convenience.

¶3The wife had filed Crl.Misc.No.295/2017 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each for herself and her daughter, respectively, and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-. By the impugned order, the Family Court had granted monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child and Rs.6,000/- per month to

the wife until she joins the husband. Aggrieved thereby, the wife is before this Court.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the maintenance granted by the Family Court is very low, and with that she is not able to maintain herself and the child. The Family Court has failed to consider the case of the wife and also the financial capacity of the husband, who is in a position to take care of the wife and the child. It is submitted that against an order passed in a restitution case, she has filed an appeal, and the appeal is pending consideration. There may be a direction to the husband to pay the entire educational expenses of the child, and the maintenance may be enhanced.

¶5Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ husband submits that, in fact, the husband is ready to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per annum towards educational and other expenses. As far as the wife is concerned, she is not entitled to maintenance, as she has failed to join the husband as per the decree passed in the Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

¶6Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The Family Court had granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child and Rs.6,000/- to the wife. The child is now 10 years old. The husband is ready to pay Rs.1 lakh per annum. Educational expenses will not remain the same. As the girl grows and enters higher classes, the amount will increase. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed to pay the educational expenses directly to the concerned school, upon furnishing the particulars by the wife. As for the submission that the wife has not joined the husband despite the decree passed for restitution and the appeal is pending, this Court is not inclined to consider the enhancement of her maintenance. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. This Court is not interfering with the maintenance granted to the petitioner No.2/wife.

ii. As far as the maintenance of the child is concerned, the respondent/husband shall bear all educational expenses, and the wife shall provide the details so that the husband will pay the fees directly to the school.

iii. Towards the other expenses, the respondent/ husband shall continue to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child.

iv. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

v. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63