- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5308 RPFC No. 100021 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100021 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI SHAHID S/O. BADESAB NADAF, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS/PAINTER, R/O. WARD NO.14, RANGIN MASJID, NEAR ZUBEERA DARGA, BIJAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUSHAL V. BOLMAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ASFIYA BANU W/O. SHAHID NADAF, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/ PRIVATE JOB, R/O. AMAR COLONY, GOPPANKOPPA, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580031. 2. BIBI ANAYAZA D/O. SHAHID NADAF, AGE: 02 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. AMAR COLONY, GOPPANKOPPA, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580031. (RESPONDENT NO.2 REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1) …RESPONDENTS (R1-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; R2-MINOR REP. BY R1) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.11.2023 IN CRL.MISC.255/2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:34 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5308 RPFC No. 100021 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.255/2023, challenging the order dated 17.11.2023 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (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 22.11.2021 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is the casse of the petitioner that, the petitioner No.1 was subjected to mental and physical assault by the respondent and as such, the respondent has neglected to take care of the petitioners and accordingly, petitioners have left the matrimonial - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5308 RPFC No. 100021 of 2024 home and residing separately and hence, the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.255/2023 seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent-husband received the summons however, failed to appear before the Family Court. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 17.11.2023 granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Kushal V. Bolmal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the award of maintenance by the Family Court is on the higher side. It is also stated that, the petitioner herein working as painter and that apart no fair opportunity has been extended to the petitioner herein to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5308 RPFC No. 100021 of 2024 contest the matter on merits. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 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 solemnized on 22.11.2021 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. 9. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that, the parties are residing separately. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court that, the petitioners are residing at Hubballi city and therefore, the grant of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper by looking into the scope of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 10. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that no fair opportunity has been extended to the respondent-husband however, perusal of paragraph No.9 of the impugned order makes it - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5308 RPFC No. 100021 of 2024 clear that, ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner herein to contest the matter however, for the reasons best known to the petitioner herein, he did not appear before the Family Court. Hence, no interference is called for. 11. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33