- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3315 RPFC No. 100064 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100064 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI. AYYANAGOUDA S/O. VENKANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, AS PER IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ACCOUNTAN/BUSINESS, R/O. CHURCHIGUDDA, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. PIN CODE: 583227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN C. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. GOURAMMA W/O. AYYANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. TAILAR/ BUSINESS, AS PER TRAIL COURT JUDGMENT HOUSE WIFE, R/O.PLOT NO.28, DHARMAPURA COLONY, TAJ NAGAR, UNAKAL, HUBBALLI. PIN CODE: 5800031. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.AMRUTH V. JOIS AND SMT. RAJASHREE, ADVOCATES) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, AND ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.11.2022 IN CRL. MISC. 264/2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3315 RPFC No. 100064 of 2023 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.264 of 2018 challenging the order dated 02.11.2022 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubblli, 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 05.05.2003 at Sindhanur. In their wedlock, two children were born. As the respondent-husband was not taking care of needs of the petitioner-wife and as there is family rift between the parties, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home and as such, the petitioner has filed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3315 RPFC No. 100064 of 2023 Crl.Misc.No.264 of 2018, seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home, without any cause and also stated that, the petitioner was adamant and not ready to take care of children. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 02.11.2022 allowed the petition in part and awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Sachin C. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Amrut V. Jois and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3315 RPFC No. 100064 of 2023 Rajashree, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. Sri. Sachin C. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent has left the matrimonial home without any cause and he further contended that, the respondent herein was adamant, as no proper understanding with the petitioner herein and further argued that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is exorbitant. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Sri. Amrut V. Jois and Rajasheree, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 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 the parties, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 05.05.2003 and in their wedlock, two - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3315 RPFC No. 100064 of 2023 children were born. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was constrained to leave the matrimonial home on account of ill-treatment meted out by her in the matrimonial home. It is also forthcoming that, the petitioner-wife has filed OS No.396 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge, Hubballi against the respondent- husband. In that view of the matter, it may be safely concluded that, the parties are residing separately. Taking into consideration, that, the petitioner herein is having agricultural lands as per Ex.P10 to Ex.P17 and therefore, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference in this petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14