- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:604 RPFC No. 100199 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100199 OF 2022 (-) C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100049 OF 2023 IN RPFC NO.100199/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. A MAHESHA S/O. MUNIYAPPA AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O. BYALACHINTHE VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. BALLARI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T. M. NADAF, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUJATHA ALIAS SUNITHA W/O A.MAHESH D/O. POMPAPATHI AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. BHARATH S/O A . MAHESH AGE. 7 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, 3. BHAVANI D/O A. MAHESH AGE. 7 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 SINCE MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN I.E.RESPONDENT NO.1 ALL ARE R/O. NEAR GADILINGAPPA TEMPLE, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.20 11:00:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:604 RPFC No. 100199 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2023 GUDUDURU, TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY & SMT. SOUBHAGYA S. VAKKUND, ADVOCATES) -------- THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI IN CRL. MISC. NO. 172/2021 AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI IN CRL. MISC. NO. 172/2021. IN RPFC NO.100049/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUJATHA ALIAS SUNITHA W/O. A. MAHESHA D/O. POMPAPATHI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.NEAR GADILINGAPPA TEMPLE, GUDUDURU BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583101. 2. MINOR BHARATH S/O. A MAHESHA, SINCE IN CARE AND CUSTODY OF HIS MOTHER SMT. SUJATHA ALIAS SUNITA W/O. A. MAHESHA D/O. POMPAPATHI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.NEAR GADILINGAPPA TEMPLE, GUDUDURU, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583101. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:604 RPFC No. 100199 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2023 3. MINOR BHAVANI D/O. A MAHESHA, SINCE IN CARE AND CUSTODY OF HIS MOTHER SMT.SUJATHA ALIAS SUNITA W/O. A MAHESHA, D/O. POMPAPATHI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.NEAR GADILINGAPPA TEMPLE, GUDUDURU BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583101 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: A. MAHESH S/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O.BYALACHINTE VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.M. NADAF, ADVOCATE) ------- THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.172/2021 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI BY GRANTING MAINTENANCE TO 1ST PETITIONER AND INCREASING MAINTENANCE TO 2nd AND 3rd PETITIONER. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:604 RPFC No. 100199 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. These petitions are arising out of the order dated 03.10.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.172/2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short “Family Court”) granting maintenance to the petitioners therein. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the marriage between petitioner No.1-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 and 3 were born. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent has not taken care of the needs of the petitioners and having been insulted and were treated inhumanely, and as such, they have left the matrimonial home and started residing with the parents of petitioner No.1. Hence, the petitioner No.1 has filed Crl.Misc.No.172/2021 before the Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent- husband. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:604 RPFC No. 100199 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2023 4.1. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed statement of objection stating that he is an agricultural coolie and has raised a loan of ₹10,00,000/- from his friends, relatives and also from the bank for family expenses. The respondent-husband has denied the allegations made against him in the petition. 4.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 03.10.2022 has allowed the petition in part and as such, directed the respondent-husband to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/- to the petitioners and being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has filed RPFC No.100199/2022 challenging the impugned order and the petitioners (wife and children) have filed RPFC No.100049/2023 seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded by the Family Court. 5. I have heard Sri. T. M. Nadaf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100199/2022 and Smt.Soubhagya S Vakkund, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in RPFC No.100049/2023. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:604 RPFC No. 100199 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2023 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100199/2022 argued that the monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/- to the respondents quantified by the Family Court is without any basis and without taking into account the share of the petitioner herein in the properties insofar as himself as well as the members in the joint family and accordingly he places reliance on the partition deed dated 18.07.2023 said to have been executed between the family members of the petitioner- husband and submitted that the petitioner-husband would get only 02 Acre 79 Cents of land and accordingly sought for interference by this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in RPFC No.100049/2023 argued for enhancement of maintenance on the ground that the respondent herein (husband) is having monthly income of more than ₹70,000/- from the land in question and also submitted that the educational expenses of petitioner No.2 and 3 has to be looked into including the medical expenses that may be incurred insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court to enhance the maintenance. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:604 RPFC No. 100199 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2023 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that a criminal case has also been lodged against the respondent-husband in Crime No.111/2021. Having taken note of the factual aspects on record, the parties are residing separately and also taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court that the petitioners (wife and children) have failed to establish that the respondent- husband is earning more than ₹70,000/- per month, I am of the view that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28