The court emphasizes the critical role of presenting evidence in maintenance claims, highlighting that the non-appearance of a party can imply an intention to avoid obligations.

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.589/2020 dated 04.01.2022 by the III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month each to the wife and the child, both the husband and the wife are before this Court. The husband’s petition is RPFC.No.172/2023 and the wife’s petition is RPFC.18/2024 seeking enhancement of maintenance.

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

3. When these matters came up on 28.08.2025, there was no representation on behalf of both the husband and the wife. Hence, the matters were directed to be listed today under HC-KAR the caption for “dismissal”. Today, learned counsel for the wife is present, but there is no representation on behalf of the husband.

4. It is the case that the wife had filed Crl.Misc.

No.589/2020 seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.75,000/- per month to herself and the child. It is the case of the wife that the marriage has taken place on 13.11.2013 at Mysore. In the wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter. It is her case that when she was pregnant, the husband went abroad on 18.05.2014. It is stated that in the year 2016, again the husband went abroad. In the year 2019 he went to London. It is the case of the wife that the husband is earning an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- per month and is owning two storied house at prime area of Vijayanagara, Mysore and also having 8 acres of ancestral landed properties. The husband has filed his objections. He had denied all the allegations made by the wife. In his objections, it is stated that the wife is employed at Fine Arts Music College, Mysore University, as a teacher and earning a handsome salary and her father is also financially well planned and she do not require any maintenance.

HC-KAR

5. The Family Court, by order impugned, had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- each to the wife and the daughter. While granting the said maintenance, the Family Court had observed that according to the wife, the husband is working as a Software Engineer at Quest Global Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Company at Bengaluru and is getting handsome salary of an amount Rs.2,50,000/- per month, he is having landed properties and also a two storied building. The same were denied by the husband. The Family Court had observed that though the wife has stated so many things, she has not produced any document to show that the husband is earning an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- per month from his avocation and is owning two storied house, 8 acres of ancestral landed property, two cars and three two wheelers, but in the wedding invitation it is shown as he is a B.E. (Mech.) graduate and is working as Senior Engineer at Quest Global Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Company at Bangalore. The Family Court considering the qualification of the husband and basing on the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the wife has no means to support herself and had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- each to the wife and the child.

HC-KAR

6. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that on behalf of the wife, she has examined herself as PW1 and on her behalf Ex.P.1 to 10 are marked. The husband has not entered into the witness box and he has not adduced any evidence and no documents are marked on his behalf. It is further submitted that when the husband has not entered into the witness box, when she has adduced her evidence and she has not cross examined, an adverse inference need to be drawn and the Family Court ought to have granted the maintenance as per the claim made by the wife. It is submitted that in the year 2013 when a person is working as a Senior Manager, now it is not open for him to say that he is not working. It is also submitted that she is not in a position to