- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4877 RPFC No. 100177 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100177 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: MAILARI @ MAILARAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA CHURAMARI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK NOW NIL, R/O. MAHALAXMI NAGAR, NEAR AMBABHAVANI TEMPLE, UNKAL-589031, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MADHU @ RAJESHWARI W/O. MAILARI @ MAILARAPPA CHURAMARI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. M.H. WASTER, HANUMANTH NAGAR, UNKAL, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT & SMT. KAVITA S. JADHAV, ADVOCATE) RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.199/2023 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.1 THEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4877 RPFC No. 100177 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) This petition is filed by the respondent-husband challenging the order dated 27.08.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.199/2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (for short “the Family Court”) granting monthly 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 of the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 30.01.2012 at Hubballi. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the respondent-husband was suspecting the petitioner-wife and has installed CC TV Camera in the house and also installed GPS to the motorcycle of the petitioner-wife and was harassing the petitioner-wife physically and mentally and as such, the petitioner-wife filed Crl.Misc.No.199/2023 seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4877 RPFC No. 100177 of 2024 3.1. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed objections admitting the relationship with the petitioner-wife, however denied the relationship with petitioner No.2 as the petitioner No.2 was not born in their wedlock. It is also the specific contention of the respondent-husband that, he had put up GPS to the vehicle with the consent of the petitioner-wife and also installed CC TV Camera for the purpose of security of the petitioners at house and therefore, denied the allegations made in the petition and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 3.2. The Family Court, after consideration of material on record, by its order dated 27.08.2024 granted maintenance of ₹4,000/- to the petitioner No.1-wife and dismissed the petition insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has filed this petition. 4. I have heard Sri. Prashant S Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that the conduct and character of the petitioner-wife is not good and also she has admitted that the petitioner No.2- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4877 RPFC No. 100177 of 2024 child is not born to the respondent-husband and therefore, it is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner No.1-wife is not entitled for even one rupee as maintenance from the respondent-husband. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Smt. Kavita S Jadhav on behalf of Sri. Arun L Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- wife submitted that as the respondent-husband admits that the petitioner No.1 is his wife and therefore, it is the duty of the respondent-husband to look after the petitioner-wife. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 30.01.2012 at Hubballi. A perusal of the reasons assigned by the Family Court makes it clear that there is a serious marital dispute between the parties. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that the petitioner No.1-wife and therefore is residing separately and it is the duty of the respondent-husband to look - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4877 RPFC No. 100177 of 2024 after needs of the petitioner No.1-wife, I do not find grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands 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.: 2 Sl No.: 15