- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4291 RPFC No. 100065 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100065 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: IRSHADAHEMAD S/O. GAIBUSAB SANADI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL ENGINEER & BUILDING CONTRACTOR, R/O. TMC NO.2398, WARD NO.1, POST: KONNUR, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINANDAN M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: SAMEENA W/O. IRSHADAHEMAD SANADI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O. IMAMSAB RAJESAB MULLA, H.NO.250, SIDDESHWAR NAGAR, KANABARGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VITHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2024, PASSED BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.37/2019, BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4291 RPFC No. 100065 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent – husband challenging the order dated 07.03.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.37/2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi1 granting maintenance to the respondent 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 petitioner before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 17.04.2012 at Belagavi and in their wedlock a daughter is born on 23.04.2013. It is further stated in the petition that the parents of the respondent and his family members were harassing the petitioner – wife to get dahej (dowry) and mother-in-law and sister-in-law of petitioner have stopped providing basic necessities to the petitioner in the matrimonial 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4291 RPFC No. 100065 of 2024 home. Hence, without tolerating the inhuman condition of life, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home and hence the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.37/2019 before the Family Court seeking maintenance. 4. The respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed objection denying the averments made in the petition insofar as the allegation made by the petitioner against the respondent – husband and his family members. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner – wife never wanted to stay in a small village where no luxurious amenities are not available and as the husband is residing at a small village in Gokak and therefore the petitioner being accustomed to way of life in city and has not taken care of respondent – husband needs and therefore, she left the matrimonial home voluntarily and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 07.03.2024, directed the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4291 RPFC No. 100065 of 2024 respondent – husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri.Abhinandan M Gundawade, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vitthal S Teli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that the respondent – wife herein has left the matrimonial home without any cause and also child born to them is in the custody of petitioner herein and further respondent even not bothered to see the child for more than 5 years and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is a tailor by profession and respondent herein is postgraduate in commerce and therefore, the respondent herein can be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4291 RPFC No. 100065 of 2024 gainfully employed and the said aspect of the matter was not considered by the Family Court in a right perspective. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order. 10. 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, it is not in dispute that marriage between the petitioner with respondent was solemnized on 17.04.2012 at Belagavi and in their wedlock a daughter is born on 23.04.2013 and the child is in the custody of the petitioner herein. 11. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the parties are residing separately. Hence, taking into consideration the scope and ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan reported in 2015 (5) SCC 705, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in this petition as - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4291 RPFC No. 100065 of 2024 the Family Court in detail considered the entire aspect of the matter and arrived at a conclusion to grant maintenance to the petitioner. 12. It is also to be noted that merely because the respondent herein is postgraduate in commerce, however, nothing is produced before this Court that she is having any independent income. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition. 13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15