Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4539 (KAR)

SHRI NAGARAJ ALIAS NAGAPPA S/O BASAPPA KODLI v. SMT VIDYA W/O NAGAPPA KODLI

RPFC/100036/2025 · 2025-03-21

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5236 RPFC No. 100036 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100036 OF 2025 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI NAGARAJ @ NAGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KODLI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVICE, R/O. #141, KELGIN BIDI, GANIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARAD MALGOUND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIDYA W/O. NAGAPPA KODLI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO.549, JYOTI NAGAR, KANGRALI KH, BELAGAVI, C/O. PLOT NO.441, T.V. CENTER, DOORDARSHAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI. 2. KUMARI SAHITYA D/O. NAGAPPA KODLI, AGE: 07 YEARS, OCC: NIL, (RESPONDENT NO.2 BEING MINOR, IS REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND/MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1) …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE TOP NOTED REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.393/2023 DATED 10.02.2025 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.22 15:55:10 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5236 RPFC No. 100036 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.393/2023, challenging the order dated 10.02.2025 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the petitioners. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 14.05.2017 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is also stated in the petition that, the respondent – husband is having illicit relationship with another woman and as the petitioner No.1 objected for the same, the petitioners were thrown out from the house. Hence, the petitioners are residing with her parents and hence, the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.393/2023 seeking maintenance. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5236 RPFC No. 100036 of 2025 4. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance however, for the best reasons know to him did not contest the matter on merits. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 10.02.2025 granted maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Sharad Malgound Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, fair opportunity was not extended to the respondent – husband to contest the matter and also the award of maintenance is on the higher side. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. It is not in dispute that, the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent – husband was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5236 RPFC No. 100036 of 2025 solemnized on 14.05.2017 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. 9. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the respondent – husband has filed MC No.78/2022 and withdrawn the same. It is also to be noted that, the respondent-husband did not contest the matter despite entered appearance. It is also to be noted that, the parties are residing separately. As per Ex.P.6, salary of the petitioner herein for the month of September-2023 is Rs.45,480/- and therefore, as the petitioner No.1 – wife has to take care of 5 years old baby girl, I am of the opinion that, the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and no interference is called for in this petition. 10. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10