- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:507 RPFC No. 100057 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100057 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: CHANNABASAYYA M. VASTRAD, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. LECTURER, R/ O. 253. 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, CHANNABASAV NILAYA, BHARTINAGAR, DHARWAD – 580004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE) AND: MISS. RAJASHREE D/O. SHIVAPPA KULAKARNI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. CIVIL ENGINEER R/O. #1513 , GANESHPUR GALLI, SHAHAPUR BELAGAVI-590004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2024 IN CRL. MISC. PETITION NO.448/2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE CRL. MISC.NO.448/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.20 10:59:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:507 RPFC No. 100057 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This petition is filed by the respondent – husband challenging the order dated 13.02.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.448/2019 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi1 allowing the petition in part. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioner before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was held during May 2010 at Dharwad and thereafter same was registered in the month of June 2010. It is further stated in the petition that there was rift in the matrimonial home on account of incompatibility of the petitioner and the respondent, which resulted in filing of 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:507 RPFC No. 100057 of 2024 the M.C.No.116/2012 by the petitioner - husband seeking dissolution of marriage, which came to be decreed on 21.07.2015. It is further stated in the petition that the issue relating to payment of maintenance and permanent alimony was kept open. It is further stated that as the respondent – wife has separated from the petitioner – husband and has to live life for her livelihood and as such she has filed Crl.Misc.No.448/2019 before the Family Court seeking maintenance. 5. The respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed objection contending that the petitioner herself has deserted the respondent denying the marital life with the respondent and also taken a contention that the petitioner was capable of earning and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 13.02.2024, allowed the petition in part by directing the respondent – husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:507 RPFC No. 100057 of 2024 Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has preferred this petition. 7. I have heard Mr.Dayanand M Bandi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vitthal S Teli, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent herein herself has deserted the petitioner herein voluntarily and has married the respondent herein whimsically. It is also contended that since there is already a decree for divorce as per order dated 21.07.2015 in M.C.No.116/2012, the Family Court ought to have considered the material on record in a right perspective taking into consideration the capability of the petitioner and the respondent herein while quantifying the maintenance is concerned. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order and refer to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:507 RPFC No. 100057 of 2024 findings recorded by the Family Court at paragraph No.16 of the impugned order. He further argued that the petitioner – husband has suppressed the material facts before the Family Court which makes it clear that the petitioner herein has not approached this Court with clean hands and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 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 would indicate that the marriage of the petitioner with husband was solemnized at Dharwad on 24.05.2010. It is also not in dispute that M.C.No.116/2012 was filed by the petitioner herein seeking dissolution of marriage which came to be decreed on 21.07.2015 and the same has reached finality. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraph Nos.11 and 16 would makes it clear that the petitioner herein is having a house at Bharati Nagar, Dharwad and has also completed B.E., M.tech. and P.hd. In that view of the matter and taking - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:507 RPFC No. 100057 of 2024 into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Others reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807, a divorced wife is also entitled for maintenance till she gets remarried and therefore considering the findings recorded by the Family Court at paragraph Nos.11 and 16, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this petition. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32