- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5491 RPFC No. 100183 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100183 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. ARJUN MELLIGERI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT WRONGLY MENTIONED AS HOUSE WORK, R/O. TULASIGERI, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT 507202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DEEPA W/O. BASAVARAJ MELLIGERI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TULASIGERI, NOW RESIDING AT BENAKATTI, TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT-507202. 2. KUMAR SUJAYA S/O. BASAVARAJ MELLIGERI, AGE: 03 YEARS, OCC: NIL, MINOR R/BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER R1, R/O. TULASIGERI, NOW RESIDING AT BENAKATTI, TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT-507202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE; R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.22/2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BAGALKOT, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5491 RPFC No. 100183 of 2024 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-husband in Crl.Misc.No.22/2022 challenging the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot (for short “the Family Court”) granting maintenance to the petitioners therein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage of the petitioner No.1-wife with respondent-husband was solemnized on 08.05.2019 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent and his family members used to ill-treat the petitioner No.1- wife and the respondent-husband has totally neglected the petitioners and as such, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and started residing separately. Hence, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5491 RPFC No. 100183 of 2024 petitioners filed Crl.Misc.No.22/2022 before the Family Court seeking maintenance. 3.1. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance before the Family Court and filed detailed statement of objections denying the averments made in the petition. It is the contention of the respondent-husband that the petitioner No.1-wife is adamant and she herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause and hence, the respondent-husband filed M.C.No.62/2020 seeking dissolution of marriage and same was allowed on 04.08.2021. Hence, the respondent-husband sought for dismissal of the petition. 3.2. The Family Court, after consideration of material on record, by its order dated 11.09.2022 granted maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1-wife and ₹5,000/- per month to petitioner No.2-child. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has filed this petition. 4. I have heard Sri. H. M. Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein and Sri. S. B. Hebballi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5491 RPFC No. 100183 of 2024 5. It is contended by Sri.H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for petitioner herein that the impugned order passed by the Family Court requires to be interfered with in this petition on the fact that the petitioner No.1-wife has refused to joint the respondent-husband and has made false allegation to the effect that the respondent-husband has neglected the petitioners. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents herein sought to justify the impugned order. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage of petitioner No.1-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 08.05.2019 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2-child was born. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-husband has filed M.C.No.62/2020 seeking dissolution of marriage against the petitioner No.1-wife and the said petition came to be allowed on 04.08.2021, it could be safely held that the parties are residing separately. 8. Insofar as quantification of maintenance is concerned, though the learned counsel appearing for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5491 RPFC No. 100183 of 2024 respondent-husband submitted that the order of maintenance is on the higher side, however taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court and as the petitioner No.1-wife has to take care of petitioner No.2-minor son, I am of the view that the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference in this petition. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. 9. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9