- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4205 RPFC No. 100209 of 2024 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. 100209 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O. JAGADEESH BADIGER, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VADAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587202. THE ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER IS SHOWN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT IS AS UNDER: R/O. SAI SPRING APARTMENTS, #F-108, 302A, 3RD FLOOR, 1ST STAGE, BEL LAYOUT, BHARAT NAGAR, BENGALURU-560091. …PETITIONER (BY *Sri.A.B. PATIL, ADV., AND SRI. BASAVARAJ S. SATANNAVAR, ADV.) AND: SMT. GAYATRI W/O. BASAVARAJ BADIGER, AGE: 26, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. CHAITANYANAGAR, KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. …RESPONDENT THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, IN CRL. MISC.NO.371/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH *Inserted vide Chamber order dated 19.03.2025 Sd/- (ESIJ) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4205 RPFC No. 100209 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.371 of 2022 challenging the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Dharwad, granting maintenance to the petitioner 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 petitioner that, marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 17.11.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner was residing with the respondent. It is also stated that, the respondent-husband is a MA Graduate and having good position in Suvarna News Channel and also running Vastu Consultancy. It is also stated that the respondent was not taking care of the needs of the petitioner-wife and also respondent has expressed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4205 RPFC No. 100209 of 2024 that he had taken deeksha and it is not possible for him to consummate the marriage and having no interest in physical relationship with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home and has filed Crl.Misc.No.371 of 2024 seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4. After service of notice respondent remained absent and has not contested the matter. 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 28.02.2024 allowed the petition in part and awarded Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has filed this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. Sri. Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order *Basavaraj S. Satannavar *Basavaraj S. Satannavar * Deleted and corrected vide chamber order dated 19.03.2025 Sd/- (ESIJ) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4205 RPFC No. 100209 of 2024 impugned is an ex-parte order and no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner herein. It is also argued that, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is on the higher side, which requires to be interfered with in this petition. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 17.11.2021 and the perusal of the finding recorded by the by the Family Court makes it clear that, the petitioner and respondent are residing separately and respondent herein is residing with her parents. It is also to be noted that, the notice issued by the Family Court is served on the petitioner herein, however, the petitioner herein deliberately did not appear before the Court. Hence, taking into consideration the destitution - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4205 RPFC No. 100209 of 2024 of the respondent herein, and also considering finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraph 10 of the petition, I am of the view that, the respondent herein is residing in Dharwad City and maintenance awarded by the Family Court is just and proper. Therefore, no interference is called for in this petition. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4