IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5270 OF 2011 BETWEEN:

SMT. SARASWATHI W/O. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUNIRABAD, NOW RESIDING AT:

ITTANGUR, C/O. PAMAPANNA S/O. MUNIVENAKATAPPA, ITTANGUR VILLAGE, SARJAPUR OBALI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL, DIST. BENGALURU-581110.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVANAND B. BEDASUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

D si i g g n it e a d l l b y y YASHAVANT YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR RAMACHANDRA S/O. KEMPAYYA, NARAYANKAR Date:

2 1 0 0 2 :4 5 3 .1 :0 1 8 .1 2 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, +0530 OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR CHURCH, MUNIRABAD, (R.S.), TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-580008.

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT –NOTICE SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 03.09.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOPPAL IN R.A.NO.15/2010 ON HIS FILE, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, IN R.A.NO.15/2010 IN FULL AWARDING MAINTENANCE OF RS. 3,000/-

PER MONTH WITH COSTS IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI )

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. None appears for the respondent.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.76/2008 and appellant in R.A.No.15/2010 decided by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Koppal and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Koppal respectively. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit seeking maintenance from the respondent who is her husband. It was contended that she married the respondent on 15.03.1992 and thereafter, they have got three children out of their wedlock. The grievance of the appellant is that the defendant ousted her from the matrimonial house without any reason and he is living with a kept mistress by name Puttamma. It is contended that the respondent has several landed properties and earns income of more than ₹2,00,000/- per year and also owns four houses, commercial complex etc.

Therefore, she claimed a monthly maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month from the respondent.

4. The suit was resisted by the respondent by filing written statement. It is contended that the allegations made by the appellant are false and frivolous. He denied his living with a kept mistress. It is contended that he had to sell one of the property to meet the expenses of marriage of his daughter and also for education of the children. Additionally, he contended that the plaintiff is living in extra marital relationship with one Allabakash and therefore, there is no desertion by the respondent. Thus, he sought for absolving his liability to pay any maintenance. The Trial Court framed following issues:

“ISSUES i) Whether the plaintiff proves defendant has deserted her without lawful excuse and he is living with kept mistress in the same house?

ii) Whether the defendant proves plaintiff is unchaste woman?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance? If so at what rate?

iv) What order or decree?”

5. The appellant/plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P.1 to 6 were marked and one witness was examined as PW.2. The respondent was examined as DW.1 and Ex.D.1 was marked. One witness was marked on his behalf as DW.2.

6. After hearing both the sides, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant has not deserted the plaintiff without lawful excuse and therefore, by answering issue No.1 in the negative, it dismissed the suit by its judgment dated

25.01.2010.

7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.15/2010 and the First Appellate Court after hearing both the sides, held that the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of suit and created charge over the properties standing in the name of the defendant.

8. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff is before this Court contending that t