- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2819 RPFC No. 100063 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100063 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: MOHAMMADILYAS URF ILIYAS S/O. D. IBRAHIMSAB DEVARMANI, SHOWN AS (SANDURU) DEVARMANI URF MAKANDAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O IBRAHIMPUR, GOUSIYA TOWN, OLD HUBLI, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. FARAZANA URF FARZANABANU W/O. MOHAMMADILIYAS URF ILIYAS (SANDURU) DEVARMANI URF MAKANDAR. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. NIL. R/O. C/O. SMT. MEHARUNNISA W/O. ABDULGAFFAR KATAWADI, DODDAMANI COLONY, NEAR BENDIGERI PS, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. KUMARI, BIBI AMEENA D/O. MOHAMMADILIYAS URF ILIYAS (SANDURU), DEVARMANI URF MAKANDAR SINCE MINOR (AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS), REP. BY HER NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, SMT. FARZANA URF FARZANABANU R/O. C/O. SMT. MEHARUNNISA W/O. ABDULGAFFAR KATAWADI, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.15 12:16:17 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2819 RPFC No. 100063 of 2023 DODDAMANI COLONY, NEAR BENDIGERI PS, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SAJID I. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) ------ THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.10.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, IN CRI.MISC. NO.254/2018, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.254 of 2018 challenging the order dated 21.10.2022 passed the Family Court, Hubballi, 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 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2819 RPFC No. 100063 of 2023 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 11.12.2011 at Hubbali. In their wedlock, petitioner No.2 is born. It is the case of the petitioners that, respondent-husband was not taking care of needs of the petitioner-wife and child, and there is rift in the family, as such, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.254 of 2018 seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioner No.1 has left the matrimonial home without cause and petitioner-wife is instigated at the hands of her mother and brother and not respecting the respondent- husband properly. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2819 RPFC No. 100063 of 2023 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 21.10.2022 allowed the petition in part and awarded Rs.8,000/- per month each to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Rajashekar Burji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sajid I. Goodwala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Sri. Rajashekar Burji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Family Court without having any basis arrived at a conclusion to grant maintenance to the respondents herein and further the petitioner herein never neglected the respondents herein. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2819 RPFC No. 100063 of 2023 8. Sri. Sajid I. Goodwala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for parties, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 11.12.2011 at Hubballi and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. Perusal of the finding recorded by Family Court would indicate that the parties are residing separately. Hence, the respondents herein are entitled for maintenance. Insofar as quantification of maintenance is concerned, it is forthcoming from the finding recorded by Family Court that, the petitioner herein is working as Broker of Building Materials particularly, Sand and Bricks and accordingly, taking into consideration the fact that, respondents are residing at Hubbali, no interference is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2819 RPFC No. 100063 of 2023 called for in this petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14