- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2818 RPFC No. 100133 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100133 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: UMESH S/O. SHIVAPPA, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND CONTRACTOR, R/O. IGUR BIMPLE ROAD, AVARGERE VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERE – 577003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SAKAMMA @ SAVITA W/O. UMESH, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PURAD BUILDING, NEW ISWAR TEMPLE ROAD, DIST. HAVERI – 581110. 2. KUM. VARSHINI D/O. UMESH, AGE. 05 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, BEING MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER SMT. SAKAMMA ALIAS SAVITA W/O UMESH, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PURAD BUILDING, NEW ISHWAR TEMPLE ROAD, HAVERI - 581110. …RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING THAT THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2021 PASSED V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.15 12:16:55 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2818 RPFC No. 100133 of 2022 CRI. MISC. NO.26/2020 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, HAVERI BE SET ASIDE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.26 of 2020 challenging the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Family Court, Haveri, granting maintenance to the petitioners therein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, marriage of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 13.04.2009 at Davanagere. In their wedlock Petitioner No.2-daugther is born. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioner-wife has been assaulted by the respondent-husband as she - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2818 RPFC No. 100133 of 2022 gave birth to a female child and also the respondent is having illicit relationship with another lady and as such, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home along with the child. Therefore, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.26 of 2020 seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioner No.1 has filed OS No.93 of 2014 seeking partition and FDP proceedings are also initiated against the respondent. It is further stated by respondent that, the petitioner- wife has left the matrimonial home without any cause. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 26.07.2021 allowed the petition in part and awarded Rs.9,000/- per month to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2818 RPFC No. 100133 of 2022 petitioner No.1 and Rs.6,000/- per month to petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent has preferred this petition 6. I have heard Sri. Shrikant T. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Sri. Shrikanth T. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that, the respondent No.1 herein has filed OS No.93 of 2014 seeking partition and now FDP No.22 of 2017 is pending consideration before the competent court. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the respondent No.1 herein has adduced evidence as PW1 and she has not been cross- examined before the Family Court. Accordingly, sought for interference of this court. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2818 RPFC No. 100133 of 2022 in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 13.04.2009 and in their wedlock, respondent No.2 is born. Perusal of the civil proceedings would indicate that the parties are residing separately. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by Family Court that, the petitioner herein is having immovable properties/agricultural land and taking into consideration the finding recorded by Family Court, I am of the opinion that, no interference is called for in this petition as the respondents herein are residing at Davanagere City and petitioner-wife has to take care of minor child and look after their livelihood. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5