- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4984 RPFC No. 100005 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100089 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100005 OF 2023 (-) C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100089 OF 2022 IN R.P.F.C. NO.100005/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGASHREE W/O. GURUBASAVARAJ HIREMATH, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SAMUDAYA BHAVANA, OLD HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, NOW R/O. TOTAD BHAVI STREET, KOPPAL-583231. 2. KUMARI DEEKSHA D/O. GURUBASAVARAJ HIREMATH, AGE: 5 YEARS, MINOR U/G OF HER NATURAL MOTHER I.E. PETITONER NO.1. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: GURUBASAVARAJ S/O. H.M. CHANNAVEERAYYA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, I.E. SRI. GURUBASAVESHWARA CANDLE COMPANY, R/O. NEAR SAMUDAYA BHAVANA, OLD HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, TQ: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARY-583212. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION; MODIFIED THE TRIAL COURT ORDER DATED 21.03.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT KOPPAL IN CRL MISC NO.165/2020 AND MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4984 RPFC No. 100005 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100089 of 2022 CONSEQUENTLY ENHANCE THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT FROM RS. 7,500/- TO RS. 25,000/- AND ETC. IN R.P.F.C. NO.100089/2022 (-) BETWEEN: GURUBASAVARAJ S/O. H.M. CHANNAVEERAYYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR SAMUDAYA BHAVAN, OLD HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, TQ: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GANGASHREE W/O. GURUBASAVARAJ HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SAMUDAYA BHAVANA, OLD HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, NOW R/O. TOTAD BHAVI STREET, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-577126. 2. KUMARI DEEKSHA CLAIMING TO BE THE DAUGHTER OF GURUBASAVARAJ HIREMATH, AGED 5 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER, SMT. GANGASHREE W/O. GURUBASAVARAJ HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SAMUDAYA BHAVAN, OLD HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, NOW R/O. TOTAD BHAVI STREET, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL-577126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.03.2022 MADE IN CRL.MISC. NO.165/2020 PASSED BY THE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4984 RPFC No. 100005 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100089 of 2022 PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL AND FURTHER DISMISS THE PETITION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER RPFC No.100005/2023 is filed by the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No.165/2020, challenging the order dated 21.03.2022 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Koppal (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance. 2. RPFC No.100089/2022 is filed by the respondent – husband, challenging the order of maintenance by the Family Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 15.05.2011 and in their wedlock - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4984 RPFC No. 100005 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100089 of 2022 petitioner No.2 is born. It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent – husband was not taking care of needs of the petitioners and was suspecting the character of petitioner No.1 and having not tolerated the same, the petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial home. Hence, the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.165/2020, seeking maintenance. 5. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed statement of objection. It is the specific contention of the respondent – husband that, the petitioner No.1 was picking up petty quarrel with the respondent and also was not co-operated for leading martial life. Hence, the respondent sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 21.03.2022, granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to the petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred RPFC No.100089/2022 and on the other - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4984 RPFC No. 100005 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100089 of 2022 hand the petitioners have preferred RPFC No.100005/2023 seeking enhancement of maintenance. 7. I have heard Sri. Chetan T. Limbikai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. G. I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in RPFC No.100005/2023 contended that, the grant of maintenance to the petitioners is on the lower side as the respondent has formed layout at Hagribommanahalli and therefore, sought for enhancement of maintenance. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – husband contended that, the award of maintenance itself is on the higher side and the respondent – husband has filed MC No.59/2015 seeking dissolution of marriage and further, OS No.12/2021 is filed by the petitioners seeking partition in the property of the respondent-husband and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4984 RPFC No. 100005 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100089 of 2022 10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner No.1 married respondent – husband and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. 11. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court as to dissolution of marriage as per MC No.59/2015 and filing of the suit in OS No.12/2021 makes it clear that, the parties are residing separately. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraph No.23 of the impugned order, I am of the view that, the award of maintenance to the petitioner No.1 is just and proper however, award of maintenance to petitioner No.2 requires enhancement from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. 2. Taking into consideration the status of respondent No.1 is concerned, the petitioners are entitled for total maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent – husband. Hence, RPFC No.100005/2023 is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4984 RPFC No. 100005 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100089 of 2022 partly allowed in terms of the observations made above. RPFC No.100089/2022 is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12