- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4543 RPFC No. 100036 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100036 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: MALLAPPA S/O. AYYAPPA TIMASAGAR @ BELLAD, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: STAFF NURSE, R/O. SUTAGUNDAR, TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT, NOW RESIDING AT KUMARESHWAR HOSPITAL, BAGALKOTE-587207. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER THROUGH VC) AND: JAYASHREE W/O. MALLAPPA TIMASAGAR @ BELLAD @ JAYASHREE D/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SUTAGUNDAR, TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT-587207. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2023, IN CRL.MISC. NO.79/2021, BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BAGALKOTE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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:4543 RPFC No. 100036 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent-husband challenging the order dated 23.11.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.79/2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote (for short “the Family Court”) granting maintenance to the petitioner-wife. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties a referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that, the marriage between petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 06.04.2009. It is stated in the petition that the respondent-husband was always teasing the petitioner-wife that she is black in complexion and also not brought any dowry at the time of the marriage and expressed on several occasions that he would have married some other lady instead of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home and residing separately. Hence, the petitioner-wife filed Crl.Misc.No.79/2021 before the Family Court seeking maintenance. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4543 RPFC No. 100036 of 2024 3.1. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and admitted the relationship with the petitioner. However, contended that the petitioner-wife is having illicit relationship with someone else and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 23.11.2023 granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent- husband is filed the present petition. 4. Sri. Prashant S Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that the award of maintenance by the Family Court is on the higher side and the Family Court has also not assessed the evidence on record particularly with regard to allegation made by the respondent- husband against the petitioner-wife for having left the matrimonial home without cause and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Smt. Gayatri S. R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4543 RPFC No. 100036 of 2024 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the finding recorded by the Family Court, it would indicate that the parties are residing separately by looking into the stand taken by the respondent-husband in the objections to the claim petition. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent- husband is working and earning monthly salary of Rs.22,800/- as on 12.01.2022, I am of the view that the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper as the respondent-husband has neglected the petitioner-wife to take care of her livelihood and therefore, no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 7. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12