- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3653 RPFC No. 200065 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200065 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MAHADEV S/O CHANDRAKANTHA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO.1-92, MAHAGAO VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI DEEPAK V.BARAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KAVYA W/O MAHADEV D/O IRANNA AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. BHAGYASHREE D/O MAHADEV, AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT (MINOR) U/G OF HER NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1. 3. SAMART S/O MAHADEV, AGE: 3 YEARS, MINOR, U/G OF HIS NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1. ALL ARE R/O: 28, MAHAGAO VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 104. NOW AT BABALAD VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT KALABURAGI IN CRL.MISC.NO.178/2024. THIS RPFC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3653 RPFC No. 200065 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi, (for short, ‘family Court’) in Criminal Miscellaneous no.178/2024, this petition is filed. 2. There is delay of 134 days in filing petition. I.A.no.1/2025 is filed for its condonation. 3. Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel submitted, delay was on account of financial hardship and sought for condonation of delay. It was submitted, family Court awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to wife and Rs.2,000/- each to two children. Since petitioner is unemployed, he is unable to pay same. 4. Heard learned counsel. 5. Except financial difficulty on account of petitioner claiming to be unemployed, no other ground is urged. Order impugned is ex parte. Petitioner has not filed affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities. Merely claming to be unemployed would not suffice to escape from liability of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3653 RPFC No. 200065 of 2025 maintaining wife and children when relationship is not disputed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015)5 SCC 705 held any able- bodied husband cannot escape liability to maintain wife and children even on ground of being unemployed. It is also seen while passing impugned order, family Court took note of assertions by respondents that petitioner was having landed properties. Respondents no.2 and 3/children are aged 7 years and 3 years respectively. Award of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to wife and Rs.2,000/- to each of children cannot be stated to be without any basis or being excessive. Taking note of facts and circumstances, family Court has passed order. I do not see any good ground to interfere with order. 6. For above said reason and as financial hardship is sole ground urged which would not be sufficient cause, I.A.no.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 Ct: Vk