Karnataka High Court
Mr Mahantesh S/O Basappa Sobanadar vs Irawwa W/O Basappa Sobanadar on 25 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100074 OF 2025 (-)
BETWEEN
MR. MAHANTESH S/O. BASAPPA SOBANADAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SY.NO.22, 1ST CROSS,
DEVANG MAIN ROAD, LAXMI NAGAR,
VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VITHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. IRAWWA W/O. BASAPPA SOBANADAR,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. C/O. ANASUYA VANI, H.NO.37,
BAZAR GALLI, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590006.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
HM
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
BENCH COURT'S ACT 1984 PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 08.01.2015 IN CRL.MISC.NO.428/2019 PASSED BY I
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI IN
AWARDING MAINTENANCE OF RS.5,000/- FROM JANUARY 2022
TILL HER LIFETIME, MAY BE KINDLY BE SET ASIDE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 13.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER THIS DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
Revision petitioner/respondent has filed this revision
petition under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984
praying for setting aside the order dated 08.01.2025 in
Crl.Misc.428/2019 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Belagavi (for short hereinafter referred to as
'Family Court') in awarding maintenance amount of
₹.5,000/- per month to the revision petitioner from
January-2022 till her lifetime.
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they
were before the Family Court for the sake of convenience
and clarity.
3. Petitioner-mother of respondent has filed
Crl.Misc.No.428/2019 under Section 125 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred to as
Cr.P.C.) praying for monthly maintenance of ₹.15,000/-
from respondent.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. The case of petitioner before the Family Court in
nutshell is that petitioner is widow and was doing vegetable
vending business and from said income she has purchased
Plot in Sy.No.22 of Vadagaon, Belagavi and also constructed
a house in it. Respondent is her son and he sold the entire
property situated at Muddebihal and Amaragol stood in the
name of petitioner, without her knowledge. Petitioner has
got another daughter by name Anasuya. Petitioner has
performed her marriage and also the marriage of present
respondent. The respondent taking undue advantage of
innocence of petitioner, took all money belonged to her and
established power loom in the house. Petitioner extended
financial assistance of ₹.5,00,000/-. From the power loom,
respondent started getting handsome profit. Thereafter, at
the instigation of his wife, respondent started assaulting
petitioner physically and was also abusing her in filthy
language and stopped providing food, medicines and
clothing to the petitioner. He also gave life-threat to the
petitioner persuading her to transfer house property in his
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
name. When petitioner refused to do so, on 25.09.2017 she
was dragged out from the house with a threat that she will
be murdered if she does not transfer the house property
into the name of respondent. Hence, the petitioner has
taken shelter in the house of her daughter.
5. It is the further case of petitioner that she also
gave representation to Shahapur Police Station, Belagavi,
but they have not taken any action. The petitioner is
suffering from her old aged ailments and requires regular
treatment. She is completely neglected by the respondent.
Respondent is hale and healthy and earning ₹.5,00,000/-
per annum. He has intentionally neglected the petitioner.
Respondent is capable to pay maintenance of ₹.15,000/-
and that much amount is required for day to day
maintenance of the petitioner. Hence, prayed for allowing
the petition.
6. After service of notice, respondent appeared
through his counsel and filed his objection statement,
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
wherein he admitted the relationship between the petitioner
and respondent but denied all other averments made in the
petition regarding purchase of the house property, throwing
out the petitioner from it, installation of power loom in the
property, etc. He contended that he is only working as daily
labourer in power loom. Petitioner has already filed
Crl.Misc.No.257/2018 under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and it is pending for
consideration. Only to harass the respondent, present
petition is filed. He never objected the petitioner to reside
with him in his house. The said house is ancestral property
and respondent constructed the house by spending his hard
earned money. Petitioner never looked after the father of
respondent and never lived happily with him and not
discharged her responsibilities of doing household work.
Respondent is holding BPL ration card and his annual
income is only ₹.36,000/-. He has to maintain his two
children. Due to lockdown, he is not having any source of
income to maintain his family. He worked as coolie on daily
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
wages since from the age of 8 years and spent money for
the education of his sister. The marriage of respondent was
solemnized on 08.02.2015 and afterwards petitioner started
harassing the respondent. His wife has left the matrimonial
house and respondent started residing in her parental
house. The grandmother has bequeathed the house
property to the respondent. He never neglected to maintain
his mother. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. After filing the petition and objection statement,
on behalf of petitioner, she was examined as P.W.1 apart
from marking Exs.P.1 to P.3. On behalf of respondent, he
was examined as R.W.1 apart from marking Exs.R.1 to
R.13. Afterwards, the Family Court after hearing arguments
has passed the order granting monthly maintenance of
₹.5,000/- from January-2022 till lifetime of petitioner.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, revision petitioner
has preferred the present revision petition.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. After service of notice of the petition, respondent
remained absent and unrepresented.
10. Heard arguments of learned counsel for revision
petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri
Vithal S Teli would submit that revision petitioner has no
source of income and without proving his source of income,
the Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹.5,000/- per
month, which is erroneous. Even though he has taken
witness summons to witnesses to prove his contention, they
became absent on the hearing dates due to election in Co-
operative Society. However, further time was not granted to
respondent to lead his evidence. Further, respondent was
paying ₹.3,000/- per month to petitioner. The Family Court
has accepted the affidavit evidence of petitioner, which is
not in accordance with law. For these reasons, he prays for
allowing the revision petition and to remand the matter to
the Family Court for reconsideration.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
12. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel
for revision petitioner, the points that arise for consideration
are:
1. Whether sufficient opportunity was not
given to respondent to put forth his
contention?
2. Whether acceptance of affidavit evidence
of petitioner by the Family Court is
erroneous?
13. Finding on point No.1 is in 'Negative' and point
No.2 is in 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
14. This is the revision petition filed under Section
19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Hence, the scope of
this revision is very limited.
15. The admitted facts of the case are that the
petitioner is the mother of respondent and she is aged
about 75 years. No material is produced before the Family
Court by the respondent to show that petitioner was having
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
sufficient means to maintain herself. Respondent being the
son of petitioner, it is his bounden duty to maintain his
mother in her old age. Admittedly, petitioner was doing
vegetable vending business, but because of her old age, she
could not continue the business and earn income for her
livelihood.
16. It is the contention of respondent that the house
property, which is standing in his name, was gifted to him
by his grandmother. However, the Family Court has
discussed about the documents produced by the respondent
in minute detail and held that earlier said house property
was standing in the name of petitioner-mother and then as
per the application of respondent, it was standing in the
name of respondent.
17. The petitioner has taken contention in her
petition that respondent has caused threat on her and
because of his threat; he got the house property from the
name of petitioner to his name. Anyway as on today, no
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
material is produced to show that petitioner owns any
house. Admittedly, she is residing in her daughter's house
and thus petitioner and respondent are not residing
together and respondent is not looking after the welfare of
his mother-petitioner.
18. It is the contention of respondent that petitioner
has left the house without any sufficient reason. The
sufficient reason to live apart from the husband is to be
established only by wife. However, that question does not
arise in case of petition filed by parents and children.
Hence, the arguments of learned counsel for respondent
that petitioner herself left the house has no relevance to
decide the petition for maintenance.
19. It is the contention of revision
petitioner/respondent that he has filed an application to
summon his witnesses and even though it was allowed, on
the dates of hearing his witnesses became absent and
further opportunity was not given to him to produce those
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
witnesses to prove that he was paying ₹.2,000/- to
₹.3,000/- per month to petitioner through one of those
witnesses.
20. If respondent was making some payment to his
mother towards her maintenance, then it is always left open
for him to establish the said payment and if he establishes
the same, then such amount would be deducted from the
maintenance amount awarded by the Court. Hence, for that
purpose, remanding the matter to the Family Court or
permitting the revision petitioner/respondent to lead
evidence does not arise. Accordingly, this point No.1 is
answered in 'Negative'.
21. Regarding point No.2 i.e. validity of acceptance
of affidavit evidence of the petitioner, for the first time in
this revision petition, revision petitioner has raised the point
that affidavit evidence was accepted by the Family Court,
which is not admissible as per Section 126 of Cr.P.C.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
22. In this regard, learned counsel for revision
petitioner relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in RPFC No.100035/2021 c/w. RPFC
No.100084/2022 dated 21.03.2023 and the judgment of
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.
Sunanda and Another vs. Bharat Naik reported in ILR 2011
KAR 1040 (Circuit Bench at Gulbarga).
23. In these two cases, the Co-ordinate Benches of
this Court have relied upon the judgment of Division Bench
of this Court in Gayathri vs. Ramesh reported in ILR
1993 KAR 1857, Shri Ujwal vs. Bharati and Another
reported in ILR 2018 KAR 3426 and Sri
Somashekaraiah vs. Smt.Parvathamma reported in ILR
2019 KAR 2614.
24. Except this last judgment of Somashekaraiah's
case referred supra, all other cases were relied by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in RPFC No.340/2011 dated
22.10.2018. In the said case, the provisions of Section 125,
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
126(2) of Cr.P.C., Sub-Sections (1)(2)(3) of Section 10 of
Family Courts Act, 1984 were dealt in detail and also the
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Iqbal Bano vs. State
of U.P. and Another reported in (2007) 6 SCC 785 and
Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another
reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 and ultimately held that in
Shri Ujwal's case cited supra, the judgment of Supreme
Court in Badshah's case was not referred. Paragraph No.29
in the above said judgment reads as follows:
"29. In Shri.Ujwal's case relied upon by the
respondent's Counsel, the Judgment of Supreme Court
in Badshah's case was not referred. Having regard to
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badshah's
case referred to supra Section 10(2) and (3) have to be
interpreted to serve the purpose of the Act as aforesaid
for giving special protection to the vulnerable groups
namely abandoned wife, children and parents. Having
regard to the aforesaid Judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the other judgments of this Court and
the other High Courts relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondent, cannot be followed. Under
the circumstances, the contention of the respondent
that acceptance of the examination-in-chief evidence of
the witnesses by the trial Court is illegal is rejected."
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
25. Reproduction of paragraphs No.17 and 18 of the
above judgment wherein Badshah's case and Iqbal
Bano's cases referred are relevant. They read as follows:
17. In Badshah's case referred to supra while
dealing with the proceedings under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :
"13.3. Thirdly, in such cases, purposive
interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of
Section 125 Cr.P.C. While dealing with the application of
a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this
provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalized
sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social
justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the
Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the
Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen
the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the
goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality
and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their
social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty
of the courts to advance the cause of the social
justice. While giving interpretation to a particular
provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap
between the law and society.
14. Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasized
that the courts have to adopt different approaches in
"social justice adjudication", which is also known as
"social context adjudication" as mere "adversarial
approach" may not be very appropriate. There are
number of social justice legislations giving special
protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the
society. Prof. Madhava Menon describes it eloquently :
"It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that 'social
context judging' is essentially the application of equality
jurisprudence as evolved by Parliament and the Supreme
Court in myriad situations presented before courts where
unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and
where courts are called upon to dispense equal justice.
Apart from the socialeconomic inequalities accentuating
the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the
adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of
the weaker party. In such a situation, the Judge has to be
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved
but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the
imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice. This
result is achieved by what we call social context judging or
social justice adjudication."
15. The provision of maintenance would
definitely fall in this category which aims at
empowering the destitute and achieving social
justice or equality and dignity of the individual.
While dealing with cases under this provision, drift
in the approach from "adversarial" litigation to
social context adjudication is the need of the hour.
..............
…………..
18. The court as the interpreter of law is supposed to
supply omissions, correct uncertainties, and harmonise
result with justice through a method of free decision –
libre recherché scientifique i.e. “free scientific research”.
We are of the opinion that there is a non-rebuttable
presumption that the legislature while making a provision
like Section 125 Cr.PC, to fulfil its constitutional duty in
good faith, had always intended to give relief to the
woman becoming “wife” under such circumstances. This
approach is particularly needed while deciding the issues
relating to gender justice. We already have examples of
exemplary efforts in this regard. Journey from Shah Bano
to Shabana Bano guaranteeing maintenance rights to
Muslim women is a classical example.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In Iqbal Banu’s case referred to supra the
Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier
judgment in Vijaykumar Prasad’s case held as
follows :
“10. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are
civil in nature. Even if the Court noticed that there was a
divorced woman in the case in question, it was open to it
to treat it as a petition under the Act considering the
beneficial nature of the legislation. Proceedings under
Section 125 CrPC and claims made under the Act are tried
by the same court. In Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of
Bihar it was held that proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C. are civil in nature. It was noted as follows:
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025HC-KAR
“14. The basic distinction between Section 488 of
the old Code and Section 126 of the Code is that Section
126 has essentially enlarged the venue of proceedings for
maintenance so as to move the place where the wife may
be residing on the date of application. The change was
thought necessary because of certain observations by the
Law Commission, taking note of the fact that often
deserted wives are compelled to live with their relatives
far away from the place where the husband and wife last
resided together. As noted by this Court in several cases,
proceedings under Section 125 of the Code are of civil
nature. Unlike clauses (b) and (c) of Section 126(1) an
application by the father or the mother claiming
maintenance has to be filed where the person from whom
maintenance is claimed lives.””
26. The real intention of incorporating Section 125 in
Cr.P.C. and presently Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 is to
provide speedy justice to the vulnerable classes i.e. the
wife, minor children and parents. That provision cannot be
misused by the revision petitioner. When he himself has not
objected for taking affidavit evidence and cross-examined
the petitioner and he himself also let in the affidavit
evidence before the Family Court, he is estopped from
saying that the procedure followed by the Family Court is
not in accordance with law and for that purpose he cannot
pray for remand of the matter to the Family Court.
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
27. Furthermore, as per Sub-Section (3) of Section
10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides the Family Court
to follow its own procedure to arrive at truth of the facts
alleged by one party and denied by other party. The
purpose of recording evidence is to arrive at truth of the
facts, which could be by receiving the evidence by way of
affidavit.
28. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner failed
to bring to the notice of this Court that by following the
procedure in receiving the affidavit evidence of the parties
what harm or prejudice was caused to the respondent.
29. In several citations, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
clearly held that this provision of maintenance i.e.
proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Section 144
of BNSS, 2023 are civil in nature and it is only between the
family members and this is the civil right arising out of the
family relationship between parties.
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
30. Having regard to the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Badshah’s case referred to supra and
Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 10 have to be
interpreted to serve the purpose of the Act as aforesaid for
giving special protection to the vulnerable groups namely
the abandoned parents i.e. aged mother in the present
case.
31. In the judgments referred by learned counsel for
revision petitioner, as already discussed above, the
judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court either in Iqbal Bano’s case
or in Badshah’s case were not referred or not considered.
The principles noted in these judgments of Hon’ble Apex
Court clearly and categorically reveal that the purpose for
which enactment of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be analysed.
32. The revision petitioner has raised this objection
only to protract payment of maintenance to his own
mother. His contention that he was working under another
person as coolie is not established by him. He has produced
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
certified copies of petition, I.A. and deposition in
Crl.Misc.No.257/2018, which was filed by the present
petitioner claiming maintenance under Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent is able-
bodied person and it is his primary responsibility to look
after his own mother that too when he possessed
immovable property.
33. As discussed above, the affidavit evidence given
before the Family Court by the petitioner and respondent
was accepted. It was not disputed by the revision
petitioner. Under these circumstances, he is estopped from
claiming remand of the matter on that ground. Accordingly,
point No.2 is answered in ‘Affirmative’.
34. The maintenance awarded by the Family Court is
only ₹.5,000/- per month that too from January-2022 and
not from the date of petition. This meager amount of
₹.5,000/- awarded by the Family Court needs no
interference.
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4616
RPFC No. 100074 of 2025
HC-KAR
35. In view of the above discussion, the impugned
order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.428/2019 on
the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Belagavi is hereby confirmed by dismissing the revision
petition.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SH
CT-MCK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1