- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2755 RPFC No. 100067 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100067 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SHANKRAPPA S/O. JAGADEEVAPPA BADIGERA, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRI AND CARPENTER, R/O. YARAGUPPA S. B., TALUK. BADAMI, DISTRICT. BAGALKOTE - 587103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT AND SMT. PRIYANKA NAYAK, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. DEEVAKKA W/O. SHANKRAPPA BADIGERA, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. YARAGUPPA, TALUK. BADAMI, NOW R/O. BHAGYA NAGAR, TALUK AND DISTRICT. KOPPAL 583231. …RESPONDENT ------- THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ADMIT THE PETITION, CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY MAINTENANCE OF RS.5,000/- PER MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL IN CRL MISC. NO.160/2020 DATED 02.01.2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.15 12:16:30 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2755 RPFC No. 100067 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent in Clr.Misc.No.160 of 2020 challenging the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Koppal, granting maintenance to the petitioner therein. 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 petitioner that, the marriage of the petitioner with respondent was solemnized during the year 1991 and thereafter, the petitioner was residing with the respondent in the matrimonial home for sometime. Thereafter, in view of rift in the family, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and residing with her parents. It is also stated that the respondent contracted second marriage and as such, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2755 RPFC No. 100067 of 2023 the petitioner has filed Criminal Case No. 814 of 1993. It is also stated that, the respondent is working and neglected the petitioner-wife, and as such, the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.160 of 2020 seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections denying the allegations made in the claim petition however, admitted the relationship between the parties. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioner herself has left the company of the respondent without any cause. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 02.01.2023, allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2755 RPFC No. 100067 of 2023 petitioner-wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Girish V. Bhat and Smt. Priyanka Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the finding recorded by Family court that, the petitioner herein has neglected the needs of the respondent herein is not correct and further argued that, the Family Court has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion with regard to transfer of property in land bearing Sy.No.230/1A, measuring 02 acres of Yeraguppa Village, Badami Taluk. Accordingly, sought for interference of this court. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that marriage of the petitioner with respondent was solemnized during the year 1991 and the parties are residing separately. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2755 RPFC No. 100067 of 2023 Perusal of the criminal case referred to above would indicate that, the respondent herein has left the matrimonial home. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by Family Court at paragraphs 11 to 15, I am of the opinion that, the maintenance granted by the Family Court is just and proper, which does not call for interference in this petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1