- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4354 RPFC No. 100067 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100067 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI. BHAVAKANNA S/O. CHANDRUKANT KARVEKAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: LAUNDRY BUSINESS, R/O. RAMNAGAR KANGRALI, K.H. BELAGAVI-590008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RESHMA W/O. BHAVAKANNA KARVEKAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KACHAERI GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. KUMARI ARPITA D/O. BHAVANKANNA KARVEKAR, AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, (MINOR UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HER NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1) …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.01.2024 CRIMINAL MIS NO.46/2019 BY THE LEARNED BETHE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BELAGAVI KINDLY SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4354 RPFC No. 100067 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.46/2019, challenging the order dated 31.01.2024 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the petitioners. 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 petitioners that, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized during January - 2013 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is the specific contention of the petitioner No.1 that, the respondent and his family members were ill-treating the petitioner No.1 and also not even taking care of basic needs of the petitioners and as such the petitioners were thrown out from the matrimonial home on 22.10.2017. Hence, the petitioner No.1 lodged complaint before APMC Police - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4354 RPFC No. 100067 of 2024 Station. It is also stated that, the petitioners are residing separately and hence, the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.46/2019 seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed statement of objection and contended that, he never neglected the petitioners and the petitioner No.1 picked up quarrel for petty grounds and scolding not only respondent and also his parents and it is the contention of the respondent-husband that, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 31.01.2024 granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the Family Court has failed to consider the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4354 RPFC No. 100067 of 2024 fact that, the respondent-wife herself left the matrimonial home without cause and further, the respondent herein is working at Vega Helmet Shop at Belagavi and therefore, contended that, the finding recorded by the Family Court requires interference. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner No.1 married respondent – husband and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. 9. Perusal of the finding would make it clear that, the parties are residing separately. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court that, the respondent No.1 herein is residing at Belagavi city and has to take care of child aged about 4 years and therefore, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the Family Court is just and proper and no interference is called for in this petition. The petitioner herein also fail to prove that, respondent is working. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4354 RPFC No. 100067 of 2024 10. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6