- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4782 RPFC No. 100182 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100182 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SHIVANAND S/O. CHANNAPPA KABBUR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. NEAR MAHALINGESHWAR TEMPLE, MAHALINGPUR, TALUKA: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, NOW AT ASHOKA IRON WORKS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.1, BEMCO CROSS, UDYAMBAG, KHANPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SANJAN @ SUREKHA W/O. SHIVANAND KABBUR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. SHIVALINGAPPA B. UNAKAL, JAYANAGAR, HINDALAGA, BELAGAVI-590003. …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.08.2024 CRIMINAL MIS NO.523/2019 BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI KINDLY SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.18 10:57:28 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4782 RPFC No. 100182 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent – husband challenging the order dated 09.08.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.523/2019 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi1 granting maintenance to the respondent herein. 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 petitioner before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 29.01.2017 and thereafter there is family rift on account of the fact that the petitioner has alleged that the respondent used to beat the petitioner for not bringing dowry and also not provided food to the petitioner and hence the petitioner left the matrimonial home and as such she has filed 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4782 RPFC No. 100182 of 2024 Crl.Misc.No.523/2019 before the Family Court seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection denying the allegations made against the respondent and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 09.08.2024 granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner - wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri.Mahantesh S Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the salary of the petitioner herein working in MRK Enterprises and drawing salary of Rs.9,000/- per month and therefore in the event of Rs.7,000/- is granted to the respondent – wife, it is difficult for the petitioner to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4782 RPFC No. 100182 of 2024 survive his life and therefore sought for interference of this Court. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. However, taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Family Court that the parties are residing separately and the respondent herein has left the matrimonial home for not tolerating the inhuman treatment meted out by her, I am of the opinion that the respondent – wife is entitled for maintenance. 9. Insofar as quantification of maintenance is concerned, as per para No.13 of the impugned order, perusal of Ex.P.2 would makes it clear that the gross salary of the petitioner herein is Rs.14,564/-. In that view of the matter, as the respondent herein has to take care of her health and is residing at Belagavi city which is the second biggest city in Karnataka where the escalation of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4782 RPFC No. 100182 of 2024 price is to be looked into and therefore, I do not find merit in the petition. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2