- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5301 RPFC No. 100185 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. 100185 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. THIMMAPPA @ THIMMA REDDY, S/O. NARASIMHULU, AGE: ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 1/2515-5, PAMPANA GOWDA COLONY, NEAR NAGULAKATTA, YEMMIGANUR, KURNOOL DIST., ANDRA PRADHESH. (EXPARTE) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUSHEELA @ GEETHA, D/O. MALLANNA W/O. THIMMAPPA @ THIMMA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 2. KUM KAVYA D/O. THIMMAPPA @ THIMMA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. MASTER SAI DIKSHITH S/O. THIMMAPPA @ THIMMA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR R/BY HIS NARURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. SUSHEELA @ GEETHA ALL ARE R/O. #117/1, NEELKANTESHWARA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, RENUKA NAGAR, TALUR ROAD, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5301 RPFC No. 100185 of 2024 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2023 IN CRL.MISC.CASE NO.23/2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BALLARI REGARDING RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 3 AND ETC. 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 28.04.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.23/2023 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari1 granting maintenance to the respondents No.1 and 3 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 petitioners before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 15.11.2002 at Ballari and in their wedlock two children (petitioners No.2 and 3) were born. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5301 RPFC No. 100185 of 2024 respondent – husband was not taking care of the petitioners and has neglected them. It is also stated that the criminal complaint has been lodged by the petitioners against the respondent in C.C.No.1052/2019 which is pending consideration before the competent Court. Hence, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and as such filed Crl.Misc.No.23/2023 before the Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent - husband. 4. After service of notice, the respondent – husband remained absent and placed ex-parte. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 28.04.2023, allowed the petition in part by directing the respondent – husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to petitioners No.1 and 3 and dismissed the petition insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has preferred this petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5301 RPFC No. 100185 of 2024 6. I have heard Sri.Amaregouda M., 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 respondent No.1 has completed BE in Civil Engineering and was working for some time and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent - husband was solemnized on 15.11.2002 and in their wedlock two children were born. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that the parties are residing separately. 9. It is also forthcoming that criminal cases are pending consideration before the competent Court - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5301 RPFC No. 100185 of 2024 between the parties which makes it clear that the parties are residing separately. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are residing at Ballari city, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Family Court awarding maintenance to the petitioners No.1 and 3 is just and proper and does not call for interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12