- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4358 RPFC No. 100050 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100050 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: MR. VENKATESH S/O. GUDDI THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR MESTRI/COOLIE, PERMANENT ADDRESS: KOTTURU VILLAGE, SOMALAPURA POST, RAYADURGAM TALUK, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515865, PRESENT ADDRESS: WARD NO.1, NEAR CANAL, MOKA ROAD, SIDDARTH COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583103, M.NO.9945057560 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y. KOTRESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUNITA W/O. VENKATESHA, D/O. ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2. V. ANAND GANESHA S/O. VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, 3. V. PAVAN S/O. VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, SINCE PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SUNITA R1. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF WARD NO.34, BASAVANAKUNTE, DEVINAGAR, BALLARI-583102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4358 RPFC No. 100050 of 2024 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION, CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS VIDE CRL. MISC. CASE NO.304/2019 DATED 14.10.2022 ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BALLARI, SHOWN AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 14.10.2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.304/2019 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the petitioners therein. 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 30.04.2006 and in their wedlock two children were born namely petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent-husband was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4358 RPFC No. 100050 of 2024 not taking care of needs of the family and was pestering the petitioner No.1 to get additional dowry and also it is stated that, the respondent has neglected the family even to provide medical facility and as such the petitioner No.1 has left the company of the respondent-husband. Hence, the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.304/2019, seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed statement of objection and contended that, the petitioner No.1 was reluctant to take care of the parents of the respondent and also quarrelling with the respondent for the frivolous reasons and therefore, contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 14.10.2022 granted total sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has presented this petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4358 RPFC No. 100050 of 2024 6. I have heard Sri. Y. Kotresha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. V.P. Vadavi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the award of maintenance is on the higher side and the petitioner herein has to look after his aged parents and he is a daily wager and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order. 9. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent- husband was solemnized on 30.04.2006 and in their wedlock two children were born. 10. On careful examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court makes it clear that, the parties are - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4358 RPFC No. 100050 of 2024 residing separately. Taking into consideration that, the petitioner No.1 – wife has to take care of two minor children so also herself, I am of the opinion that, the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper as the petitioners before the Family Court are residing at Ballari city therefore, no interference is called for in this petition. 11. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14