- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4781 RPFC No. 100167 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. 100167 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHAIK ARIF AHMAD S/O. LATE ANWAR AHMED AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR SUPERVISOR JINDAL LOGISTRICS, R/O. TSP ROAD, NEAR FIRODS MASJID, TB DAM ROAD, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI-583201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.P.VADAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHAIK SHAHISTA GULHAR W/O. SHAIK ARIF AHMED, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. 2. MINOR UMME ALIZA D/O. SHAIK AHMED AGE: 4 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 3. MINOR AAZAM S/O. SHAIK ARIF AHMED AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: NIL, (RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1), ALL ARE R/O. DOOR NO.31, NEAR MARUTHI NAGAR, WARD NO.1, DOOR NO.34, KHB COLONY, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS; ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.08.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BALLARI IN CRIMINAL MISC. NO.144/2021, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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:4781 RPFC No. 100167 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent – husband challenging the order dated 22.08.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.144/2021 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari1 granting maintenance to the petitioners No.2 and 3. 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 petitioners before the Family Court that Smt.Shaik Shahishta Gulnar had preferred petition on herself as well as on behalf of her minor children (petitioners No.2 and 3). It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent has neglected to take care of the petitioners and also stated that the respondent was harassing petitioner No.1 demanding additional dowry 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4781 RPFC No. 100167 of 2024 and in this regard the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.144/2021 seeking maintenance from the respondent - husband. It is also stated that respondent is working in M/s. Jindal Company. 4. After service of notice, the respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection denying the allegation made by petitioner No.1 against the respondent. It is also stated that the petitioners have left the matrimonial home without cause and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 22.08.2024 awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each to petitioners No.2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent - husband has presented this petition. 6. I have heard Sri.V.P.Vadavi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4781 RPFC No. 100167 of 2024 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the award of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each to petitioners No.2 and 3 is on higher side. The Family Court has not considered the fact that the petitioner herein is working in a private firm and his salary is not fixed and therefore sought for interference of this Court. 8. Having taken note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relationship between the parties is not disputed. Taking into consideration that the parties are residing separately, the petitioners are entitled for maintenance from the respondent - husband. Insofar as quantification of the maintenance is concerned, by looking into the age of petitioners No.2 and 3 as one year three months and six years respectively and petitioners are residing at Ballari city, I am of the view that the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4781 RPFC No. 100167 of 2024 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1