- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3120 RPFC No. 100005 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100005 OF 2025 (-) BETWEEN: ABDULQUDDUS SHAKIL BHUKARI, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. TANUPRIYA APARATMENT, BAGALGUNTE, 8TH MILE BENGALURU-560073 NOW R/O.NO.1314/H.3 ANKALI KHOOT, CHIKODI-591201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. M. JAVED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. TAYYABA W/O. ABDULQUDDS BHUKARI AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK 2. KUMARI ARFA D/O. ABDULQUDDUS BHUKARI, AGE. 8 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT SINCE MINOR REP BY RESP NO.1 HER NATURAL MOTHER BOTH R/O. C/O. M.G.MOKASHI, 1ST CROSS, BHARAT NAGAR, SHAHAPUR BELAGAVI – 590003. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3120 RPFC No. 100005 of 2025 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.375/2019 DATED 05.12.2024 BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELGAUM, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 06.12.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.375 of 2019 on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Belagavi, granting maintenance to the respondents herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized during May 2015 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 is born. It is also stated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3120 RPFC No. 100005 of 2025 that, after the marriage, both petitioner No.1 and respondent were residing at Bengaluru and in the matrimonial home she was subjected to harassment not only by the respondent but also from his family members for greed of dowry. It is also stated that, the petitioner No.1 was constrained to leave a matrimonial home and residing along with her parents. Hence, petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.375 of 2019, seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections denying the averments made in the petition. It is the specific contention of the respondent that the petitioner No.1 had no intention to join her matrimonial home, after the birth of the petitioner No.2 and also the petitioner No.1 was insulting the respondent and also not cooperate for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3120 RPFC No. 100005 of 2025 cohabitation. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 05.12.2024 allowed the petition in part, holding that the petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.15,000/- per month and petitioner No.2 is entitle for Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband preferred this revision petition. 6. Sri. R.M. Javed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband contended that, the petitioner No.1-wife, who is PW1 was continuously absent from Family Court proceedings and instead of dismissing the petition, the respondent-husband has been directed to pay the maintenance without any cause and further the respondent-husband was taking care of the petitioners and the said aspect of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3120 RPFC No. 100005 of 2025 matter was not considered by the Family court. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by Family Court. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized during May 2015 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. Perusal of the finding recorded by Family Court would indicate that, the parties are residing separately. It is also not in dispute that proceedings under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, is pending consideration before the Family Court. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-husband is working as a Senior Engineer and as per the finding recorded by Family Court, at paragraph 12 that, the salary was Rs.74,506/- per month, therefore, I am of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3120 RPFC No. 100005 of 2025 the opinion that, no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22