- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5304 RPFC No. 100096 of 2023 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. 100096 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: NAZEERSAB S/O. NAVABSAB MATTESABNAVAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNTANT, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, NOW AT: R/O. NEKAR NAGAR, GIRYAL ROAD, OLD HUBBALLI-580024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, SRI. P.S. TADAPATRI, SRI. B.G. INDI & SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES) AND: BIBIJAN W/O. NAZEERSAB MATTESABNAVAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. HUBBALLI, NOW AT: KANAGINAHAL ROAD, NEAR SHRI SHARANA BASAVESHWAR SCHOOL, BETAGERI -TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.A. PATHAN, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2023 PASSED BY HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.103/2021 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:36 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5304 RPFC No. 100096 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent-husband challenging the order dated 10.03.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.103/2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag (for short “the Family Court”) granting maintenance to the petitioner-wife. 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 petitioner-wife that the marriage between petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised on 25.04.2019. It is also stated by the petitioner-wife in the claim petition that the respondent- husband and his family members used to ill-treat the petitioner-wife and that the respondent-husband has neglected the petitioner-wife and as such, the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home and started residing separately and as such, filed Crl.Misc.No.103/ 2021 seeking maintenance. 3.1. After service of notice, respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed objections countering the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5304 RPFC No. 100096 of 2023 allegations made in the petition stating that the petitioner-wife herself has deserted the company of the respondent-husband without any reasonable cause and also not co-operated in the marital life and hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. It is also stated that the respondent-husband has filed O.S.No.33/2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which came to be allowed on 08.03.2022 and therefore, the respondent-husband sought for dismissal of the petition. 3.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 10.03.2023 directed the respondent- husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹13,000/- to the petitioner-wife and feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has presented this petition. 4. I have heard Smt. P. S. Tadapatri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband. It is contended that the petitioner-wife herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause and also the respondent-husband has made all efforts to secure the company of the petitioner-wife and despite the fact that the respondent-husband has filed O.S.No.33/2021 before the competent Court seeking restitution - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5304 RPFC No. 100096 of 2023 of conjugal rights, which came to be allowed, however the petitioner-wife has not joined the company of respondent- husband and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband that the petitioner-wife is a B.A. B.Ed. graduate and was working as a teacher and the said aspect has been ignored by the Family Court and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri.A. A. Pathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife that prior to marriage with the respondent-husband, the petitioner- wife was working as a teacher and thereafter she has left the said job. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife that as per the salary slip of the respondent- husband for the month of October-2024 the respondent- husband was getting salary of ₹90,000/- per month and therefore, sought for dismissal of this petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5304 RPFC No. 100096 of 2023 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the parties are residing separately and same could be gathered from the finding recorded by the Family Court in O.S.No.33/2021. Taking into account, the factual aspect on record as the parties are residing separately and the petitioner- wife is residing at Betageri of Gadag Taluk and also taking into account the status of the respondent-husband and his salary as mentioned above, grant of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 7. 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.: 1 Sl No.: 29