- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5305 RPFC No. 100151 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. 100151 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHENDAR S/O. CHAMPALAL SANGHVI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS/COOLIE, R/O. K.102, RAJIPA GREEN LAND, OPP. KANBA HOSPITAL, MANAMOHAN CROSS ROAD, NIKOL, AHAMEDABAD. ALSO AVAILABLE AT C/O. KATARIA PLASTIC NO.117, OPP. VIDYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAHARAJA SCHOOL, AMBICA NAGAR, ODHAR, AHMEDABAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHILPA W/O. MAHENDAR SANGHVI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. C/O. SUVARNA GUJJARI, NO.35, NEAR ANGANAVADI, SHETTAR COLONY, HANUMANTH NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 2. KUM. VARSHA D/O. MAHENDAR SANGHVI, AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. C/O. SUVARNA GUJJARI, NO.35, NEAR ANGANAVADI, SHETTAR COLONY, HANUMANTH NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5305 RPFC No. 100151 of 2023 3. KUM. AKSHATA D/O. MAHENDAR SANGHVI, AGE: 06 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. C/O. SUVARNA GUJJARI, NO.35, NEAR ANGANAVADI, SHETTAR COLONY, HANUMANTH NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 4. KUM. DAKSH S/O. MAHENDAR SANGHVI, AGE: 04 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. C/O. SUVARNA GUJJARI, NO.35, NEAR ANGANAVADI, SHETTAR COLONY, HANUMANTH NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. SINCE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. SHILPA W/O. MAHENDRA SANGHAVI, I.E. REPSODNENT NO.1. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR & SRI. SIDDANAGOUDA B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI IN CRL.MISC NO.270/2021 DATED 23.12.2022 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5305 RPFC No. 100151 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent-husband challenging the order dated 23.12.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.270/ 2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (for short “the Family 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 No.1-wife and the respondent- husband was solemnized on 03.02.2012 and in their wedlock, three children were born viz., petitioner No.2 to 4. It is the case of the petitioner No.1-wife that the respondent is having illicit relationship with other lady and also having bad vices and same was questioned by petitioner No.1-wife, however, the respondent-husband has thrown out the petitioners from matrimonial home and as such, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and residing separately at Hubballi. Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.270/2021 seeking maintenance. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5305 RPFC No. 100151 of 2023 3.1. After service of notice, respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed objections stating that the petitioner No.1-wife was adamant and also had suspicion about the respondent-husband for each and every aspects and therefore, it is contended by the respondent-husband that as the petitioner No.1-wife is not a dutiful wife and as such, sought for dismissal of the petition. 3.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 23.12.2022 granted maintenance of ₹10,000/- to petitioner No.1-wife and ₹5,000/- to petitioner No.2 to 4 each. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has presented this petition. 4. I have heard Sri. S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein/respondent- husband before the Family Court and Sri.Santosh B Malagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein/petitioner No.1-wife before the Family Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5305 RPFC No. 100151 of 2023 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband that the award of maintenance is on the higher side, which requires interference by this Court. It is also contended by the respondent-husband that the petitioner No.1-wife has left the matrimonial home without any cause and further the respondent-husband is having a plastic business, which is under loss and the said aspect has not been considered by the Family Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband that fair opportunity has not been extended to the respondent-husband to contest the matter and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1-wife sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1-wife that despite interim order granted by this Court on 09.11.2023, there is arrears of maintenance nearly ₹8,00,000/- to be payable to the petitioners and interim order granted by this - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5305 RPFC No. 100151 of 2023 Court is not complied with and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 married respondent on 03.02.2012 and in their wedlock three children (petitioner No.1 to 3) were born and further the Family Court has recorded a finding that the parties are residing separately. Insofar as quantification of maintenance is concerned, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record that the petitioner No.1-wife has to take care of three children and also the finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraph 16 is concerned, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this petition. Insofar as contention raised by the respondent-husband that no fair opportunity was extended to the respondent-husband, the respondent has filed a detailed objection, however for the reasons best known to the respondent-husband, he has not adduced evidence before the Family Court. Therefore, the arguments of the petitioner cannot be considered by looking to the scope and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5305 RPFC No. 100151 of 2023 ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The petition deserves to be dismissed, accordingly, dismissed. 8. 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.: 30