- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5303 RPFC No. 100020 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. 100020 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. KANAKAPPA CHALAVADI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. MURADI VILLAGE, TQ: YELABURGA, DIST: KOPPAL-583237. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PADMAVATI W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR CHALAVADI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MURADI VILLAGE, TQ: YELABURGA DIST: KOPPAL-583237, NOW AT C/O. NAGAPPA CHALAVADI, WARD NO.1 CHALAVADI STREET, NEAR DURUGAMMA TEMPLE, NAVALI VILLAGE, TQ: KANAKAGIRI-583229. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GANGAVATI IN CRL.MISC. NO.228/2021 DATED 22.04.2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:33 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5303 RPFC No. 100020 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent-husband in Crl.Misc.No.228/2021 challenging the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi (for short “the Trial 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 respondent-husband was solemnized on 23.05.2010 at Kanakagiri. It is also stated that the respondent-husband and his parents were ill- treating the petitioner-wife and were pressurizing the petitioner-wife to bring additional dowry and as such, the petitioner-wife was not happy in the matrimonial home. It is also contended by the petitioner-wife that she gave birth to a female child on 07.10.2016 and since the respondent- husband neglected the petitioner-wife, the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home and started residing with her - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5303 RPFC No. 100020 of 2023 parents. Hence, the petitioner-wife filed Crl.Misc.No.228/2021 seeking maintenance. 3.1. The respondent-husband through served with notice, remained unrepresented before the Trial Court and was placed ex parte. 3.2. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 22.04.2022 granted monthly maintenance of ₹6,000/- to the petitioner-wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has presented this petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel that the award made by the Trial Court is on the higher side and as the petitioner-wife herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. It is also stated that a fair opportunity was not extended to the respondent-husband and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5303 RPFC No. 100020 of 2023 5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Trial Court, it would indicate that the marriage between petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on 23.05.2010 and in their wedlock a daughter was born. Insofar as submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband that ex parte order has been passed is concerned, careful examination of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that notice has been served on the respondent-husband, however he deliberately refused to appear before the Trial Court and therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-husband cannot be accepted since opportunity given to the respondent-husband has been denied by the respondent-husband. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner-wife is residing at Kanakagiri and as she has to take care of her livelihood and her child, I am of the view that the order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and same does not call for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5303 RPFC No. 100020 of 2023 interference of this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 6. 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.: 28