- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:250 RPFC No. 100024 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100024 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. ANIL RAMADURGA S/O. HANAMANTH RAMADURGA, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR/BUSINESS, R/O. C/O. H.H. RAMDURGA, TALUK. RAMADURGA, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI PIN. 591123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KAPAHI BUNTY RAJKUMAR AND SRI. SACHCHIDANANDA B. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. RENUKA RAMADURGA W/O. ANIL RAMADURGA, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KERUR, TQ. BADAMI, NOW AT: C/O. KANAKAPPA LAXMAN KELUDI SECTOR NO. 35, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, TQ AND DIST. BAGALAKOTE PIN. - 58103. …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23-11-2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BAGALKOTE IN CRL. MISC NO.39/2020 AND DISMISS CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.39/2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BAGALKOTE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISISON THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.10 16:38:32 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:250 RPFC No. 100024 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein is assailing the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.39/2020 by the file of Principal Judge Family Court at Bagalkote (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 06.06.2014 at Veerbhadreshwar Temple at Belagavi and thereafter, the respondent-husband has caused physical and mental torture to the petitioner and as such the petitioner-wife has left the matrimonial home. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent-husband has tortured the petitioner to bring dowry to purchase JCB and accordingly, the parents of the petitioner-wife had paid Rs.5 lakhs to the respondent. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent-husband has filed MC No.330/2017 before the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:250 RPFC No. 100024 of 2023 Family Court at Belagavi and has got exparte decree of divorce and same has been challenged by the petitioner-wife. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the petitioner has no means of livelihood and accordingly filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.39/2020 seeking maintenance. 5. After service of notice the respondent-husband entered appearance and contended that the petitioner-wife has failed to appear in MC No.330/2017 and accordingly the said petition came to be disposed off exparte. It is stated in the objection that the respondent-husband has no means of livelihood and he is earning Rs.6,000/- per month as daily wager and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 23.11.2022, allowed the claim petition in part and directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 7. Sri. Sachidanand B Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court requires to be set aside on the ground that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:250 RPFC No. 100024 of 2023 the quantification of the maintenance is on the higher side despite the fact that the petitioner is earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 06.06.2014 at Veerbhadreshwar Temple at Belagavi and thereafter, the respondent herein was residing in matrimonial home. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the petitioner and the respondent are residing separately. It is also recorded in the finding that the petitioner herein is having immovable property, though joint family property, along with his father, however, taking into consideration the livelihood of the respondent herein is concerned the grant of maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court in this petition. 9. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM / CT:ANB / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29