- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3987 RPFC No. 100180 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100180 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. SHANKAR S/O. VITHAL SHAHAPUR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, RESIDENT OF SOLLAPUR KONDI VILLAGE, T.P.T. (SLPTPT) GAT NO.313/2, BEHIND PUNE ESC ORT NAKA, NEAR WATER TANK, N.H.65, KONDI SOLLAPUR-413255 SHOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMRUTH VASANTH JOIS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BASAMMA W/O SHANKAR SHAHAPUR, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DUBALKOTI GALLI, JAINPET, BAGALKOT. 2. KUMARI SHRADDHA D/O. SHANKAR SHAHAPUR, AGE. 12 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. DUBALKOTI GALLI, JAINPET, BAGALKOT. (SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1) …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3987 RPFC No. 100180 of 2023 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.218/2019 DATED 17.01.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BAGALKOTE BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein. 2. This petition is filed by the respondent-husband in Crl.Misc.No.218/2019 challenging the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote (for short “the Family Court”). 3. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No. 218/2019 that, the marriage of the petitioner No.1-wife with respondent-husband was solemnized and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. It is stated in the petition that, the respondent-husband has neglected the needs of the petitioner No.1 on the ground that the petitioner No.1 haD delivered a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3987 RPFC No. 100180 of 2023 baby girl and therefore, he did not look after the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioner No.1-wife has left the matrimonial home having not tolerated the ill-treatment meted out by her. Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.218/2019 seeking maintenance. 4.1. Though notice was served to the respondent- husband, he did not appear before the Family Court and was placed ex parte. 4.2. The Family Court, after considering the material available on record, by its order dated 17.01.2023 disposed off the petition with a direction to the respondent-husband to pay ₹7,500/- per month to petitioner No.1 and ₹5,000/- per month to petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 5. Sri. Amruth Vasant Jois, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, contended that fair opportunity was not extended to the respondent-husband to defend the case and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. He also invited the attention of this Court to the paragraph 11 of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3987 RPFC No. 100180 of 2023 impugned order and submitted that the impugned order requires to be interfered with in this petition. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, it is not in dispute with regard to the marriage between petitioner No.1-wife and the respondent-husband and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. Petitioner No.2 is aged about 8 years and taking into consideration the evidence of PW1, the parties are residing separately and as the petitioner No.1-wife has deposed in her evidence that the respondent-husband is working in VRL office and also having a handsome salary and as such, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are residing separately at Bagalakote city, the grant of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper as the petitioner No.1 requires maintenance to look after her health and her eight year old child. 7. Insofar as submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband that a fair opportunity was not extended to the respondent-husband and on careful examination of the paragraphs 3 and 11, makes it clear that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3987 RPFC No. 100180 of 2023 the respondent has not appeared before the Family Court and avoided to appear before the Family Court. In that view of the matter, I do not find any material in the petition even on merits also. 8. It is also to be noted here that there is a delay of 101 days in filing the petition, however as the petition is dismissed on merits as well as no acceptable reason has been given in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the present petition, I do not find any merit in the application. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 9. 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:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6