- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3312 RPFC No. 100049 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100049 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. RAVI S/O. KHEERAPPA PAWAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. GEDDALAMARI TANDA, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586212. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PURNIMA W/O. RAVI PAWAR, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. GEDDALAMARI TANDA, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, NOW RESIDING AT RAMPUR, TQ.DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ P. HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATE) ------ THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2024 ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. IN CRL. MISC. NO. 39/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BAGALKOT AWARDING MAINTENANCE OF RS.15,000/- AND COST OF RS.5,000/- FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF PETITION I.E. 19.04.2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3312 RPFC No. 100049 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent assailing the order dated 01.02.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.39/2021 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), awarding maintenance to the respondent herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 21.06.2018 and the respondent was not looking after the petitioner as a dutiful wife and also it is stated that the respondent was pressuring the petitioner to get additional dowry. It is also stated that, on account of the marriage a child born however, died on 04.06.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner left the matrimonial home as the respondent-husband neglected to maintain the petitioner. Hence, Criminal Miscellaneous No.39/2021 is filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3312 RPFC No. 100049 of 2024 4. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection admitting the marriage however, denied the allegation of claiming dowry. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner herself is not interested to lead marital life and was insisting the respondent to make separate house at Bagalkote city and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 01.02.2024 granted maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent herein. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri.Ganesh Raibagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Pruthviraj P. Hittalamani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner herein is working as coolie and having 3 acres of land which is the part of the joint family and also stated that the award of maintenance is on the higher side which requires to be interfered with. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3312 RPFC No. 100049 of 2024 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order. 9. Having taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 21.06.2018 and in their wedlock a child was born however, died on 04.06.2020. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that, the parties are residing separately. It is also forthcoming from the findings that the petitioner herein is a graduate in Arts and education. 10. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration as the petitioner herein is having knowledge of computer and having three bank accounts in Corporation Bank, State Bank of India and HDFC Bank, makes it clear that, the petitioner herein is not a coolie by occupation and therefore, finding recorded by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference. 11. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3312 RPFC No. 100049 of 2024 12. Amount in deposit if any, be released in favour of the respondent-wife after due identification. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8