- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4209 RPFC No. 100011 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100011 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. BASAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA MUTAWADI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: ARMY RETIRED, R/AT. WADARAHATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591218. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH BIRANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHEETAL W/O. BASAPPA MUTAWADI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. KUMARI GAYATRI D/O. BASAPPA MUTAWADI, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 3. KUMARI KAVERI D/O. BASAPPA MUTAWADI, AGE: 09 YEARS, OCC: NIL, ALL ARE R/AT. C/O. SUREKHA KURBAR, SUBASH GALLI, ASHTE VILLAGE, TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI PASSED IN CRL. MISC.NO.192/2016 DATED 20.12.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-F ALLOWING THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AFTER CALLING FOR RECORDS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.07 16:18:41 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4209 RPFC No. 100011 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.192 of 2016 challenging the order dated 20.12.2022 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court Belagavi, granting maintenance to the petitioners 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 petitioners that, marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 09.04.2009 at Belagavi and in their wedlock two daughters were born namely, petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It is stated in the petition that, the respondent-husband and his family members were insulting the petitioner No.1 that she is not good looking and pressuring the petitioner No.1 to bring - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4209 RPFC No. 100011 of 2023 additional dowry and it also stated if respondent would have married other girl instead of petitioner No.1. As there is rift between the parties, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.192 of 2016 seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. It is also stated in the petition that, the respondent is having illicit relationship with his brother’s wife Kamalavva and in this regard a meeting was arranged, in which it is alleged in the petition that, the respondent admitted his guilt. It also stated that the respondent has married another lady by name Shekavva during the year 2010 and therefore, the petitioners have sought for maintenance. 4. After service of notice respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the specific case of the respondent that, his elder brother is mentally abnormal and also he has to take care of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4209 RPFC No. 100011 of 2023 his aged mother and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 20.12.2022 allowed the petition in part and awarded Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- each per month to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Santhosh Birangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Sri. Santhosh Birangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner took retirement from the service and his pension is Rs.19,475/- per month and he has to look after his old - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4209 RPFC No. 100011 of 2023 aged parents and other family members and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Sri. Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner herein has contracted with second marriage, which itself demonstrates that the petitioner herein is financially sound person. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 09.04.2009 and in their wedlock, two children were born (petitioner Nos. 2 and 3). Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that, the petitioner herein is contracted with second marriage and was working in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4209 RPFC No. 100011 of 2023 Army for sometime. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the Family Court, particularly as the respondents herein are residing at Belagavi city and respondent No.1-wife has to take care of two daughters, who are minors, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11