- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4985 RPFC No. 100145 of 2024 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. 100145 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: 1. K. SHAHIDA PARVEEN W/O. DOWLATH KHAN R.G., AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. ATIYA SULTANA D/O. DOWLATH KHAN R.G., AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, BOTH ARE R/O. #87, WARD NO.28, EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY, BELAGAL CROSS, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) AND: DOWLATH KHAN R.G. S/O. R.G. SARMAS KHAN, MUSLIM, MAJOR, GOVERNMENT TEACHER, R/O. BEHIND STATE BANK OF INDIA, URAVAKONDA POST, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-0515812, ANDHRA PRADESH, WORKING AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL AT MARUR, RAPTADU MANDALAM, ANANTAPUR, DIST: ANDHRA PRADESH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 08.05.2024 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BALLARI IN CRL.MISC. PET. NO.67/2021, BY ALLOWING THE PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4985 RPFC No. 100145 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 08.05.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.67/2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari1 granting maintenance to the petitioner No.2 and rejecting the petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned. 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 03.11.2002 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is also stated that the other daughter of respondent born to his first wife, and she is pursuing medical education at Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was not taking care of the needs of the petitioners and the 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4985 RPFC No. 100145 of 2024 petitioners were subjected to physical and mental agony by the respondent and hence the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and residing separately. 4. After service of notice, the respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection contending that the petitioner No.1 herself has deserted the respondent denying the marital life with the respondent and also taken a contention that the petitioner No.1 was capable of earning and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. It is also the specific case of the respondent that he married Smt.Hazira Begaum who was working as an Urdu Teacher at Government School and at the relevant point of time the respondent was working as a Lab Assistant at Government Junior College, Uravakonda. It is also stated that the said Smt.Hazira Begaum died on 01.07.1994 on account of labour pain, however, delivered a female baby – Kumari.Rafiya Sultana who had completed her MBBS. It is the also the case of the respondent that, the net salary of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4985 RPFC No. 100145 of 2024 the respondent is Rs.65,000/- per month and has to take care of other daughter also and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 08.05.2024, allowed the petition in part by directing the respondent – husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner No.2, however, dismissed the petition against the petitioner No.1. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri.Sadiq N Goodwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.H.R.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Family Court has committed an error in dismissing the petition against the petitioner No.1, however, granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4985 RPFC No. 100145 of 2024 petitioner No.2. The reasons assigned by the Family Court is contrary to the records and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court and argued that the allegation of the petitioner No.1 that the respondent was working as a science teacher and earning a salary as per Ex.P.5 is incorrect and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with respondent - husband was solemnized on 03.11.2002 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. On careful examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court, as per para Nos.33 to 37, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this petition as petitioner No.1 has not made out a case for interference in the impugned order passed * Paragraphs 9 and 10 are modified vide order of this Court dated 07.04.2025. Sd/- (ESIJ) * - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4985 RPFC No. 100145 of 2024 by the Family Court and also it has to be noted that the respondent – husband is taking care of other daughter who is pursuing medical education and therefore no interference is called for in this petition. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13 * Paragraphs 9 and 10 are modified vide order of this Court dated 07.04.2025. Sd/- (ESIJ) * - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4985 RPFC No. 100145 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [K. SHAHIDA PARVEEN W/O DOWLATH KHAN AND ANOTHER VS. DOWLATH KHAN R.G. S/O R.G.SARMAS KHAN] 07.04.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’ This Court vide order dated 18.03.2025 disposed of the petition, however on account of overlap of typing of dictation in the order, error has crept. Accordingly, paragraph 9 and 10 in the order dated 18.03.2025 are modified as under: “9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with respondent - husband was solemnized on 03.11.2002 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. I have carefully examined the reasons assigned by the Family Court in the impugned order. On consideration of the reasons assigned by the Family Court at paragraph 26 of the impugned order, it reveals - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4985 RPFC No. 100145 of 2024 that the respondent was sent to custody. That apart, the salary slip produced at Ex.P5 has not been properly assessed by the Family Court while considering the claim petition filed by the petitioners therein. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 08.05.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.67/2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration. iii) In order to avoid further delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Family Court on 22.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m., without waiting for further notice. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4985 RPFC No. 100145 of 2024 iv) Upon hearing the parties, the Family Court is directed to expedite the matter in accordance with law. v) Registry is directed to re-issue fresh certified copy to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.” This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 18.03.2025. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1