- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5300 RPFC No. 100163 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. 100163 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: CHANDRASHEKHAR HADAPAD, S/O. TIRAKAPPA HADAPAD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE RESIDENT OF LAXMI EXTENSION AREA, GOKAK-591307. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNILKUMAR BANGARI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. JAYASHREE HADAPAD, W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR HADAPAD, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. MANJUNATHA H.S., MALGI BUILDING, SANGAM NAGAR, KANGRALI B.K., BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT-590010. …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.04.2024 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC.NO.214/2020 THEREBY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION AND ETC. 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: 2025.03.25 16:02:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5300 RPFC No. 100163 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 29.04.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.214/2020 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 21 years ago. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent - husband had filed M.C.No.53/2015 seeking dissolution of marriage and the said petition came to be dismissed. It is the case of the petitioners that she is aged about 46 years and having health ailments and further the respondent and his family members were inhumanly treated the petitioner and as 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5300 RPFC No. 100163 of 2024 such she left the matrimonial home and residing at her parental house. Hence, the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.214/2020 before the Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent - husband. 4. After service of notice, the respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the specific case of the respondent - husband that because he married the respondent herein, he is suffering physically and mentally and also filed M.C.No.53/2015 which came to be dismissed. It is also stated that the he is also under medical treatment and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 29.04.2024, allowed the petition in part by directing the respondent – husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has preferred this petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5300 RPFC No. 100163 of 2024 6. I have heard Sri.Sunilkumar Bangari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the award of maintenance by the Family Court is on higher side and the petitioner herself has left the matrimonial home and accordingly, 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 that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent - husband was solemnized and no children were born to them. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that M.C.No.53/2015 is filed by the petitioner herein seeking dissolution of marriage which came to be dismissed. The said fact would makes it clear that the parties are residing separately. 9. Taking into consideration the salary certificate produced by the respondent as per Ex.R.1, makes it clear - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5300 RPFC No. 100163 of 2024 that the petitioner herein is capable of obeying the order passed by the Family Court, hence, there is no perversity in the order passed by the Family Court. 10. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9