- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5251 RPFC No. 100193 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100193 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMED WASEEM, S/O. JAMIL TAMBOLI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. ROOM NO.504, HIRE RESIDENCY, KHAN COMPOUND, SHILPHAT, THANA-400612, MAHARASHTRA, ALSO AT GANPATI GALLI, NEAR OLD KDCC BANK, HALIYAL TALUK-581329, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN PRABHAKAR TARIKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NAZIYA M WASEEM TAMBOLI, W/O. MOHAMMED WASEEM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. C/O. ABDUL LATIF KOTWAL, H.NO.3823/P, MASHA ALLA BUILDING, KOTWAL GALLI, BELAGAVI. 2. KUMAR. NEHAAN M WASEEM TAMBOLI, S/O. MOHAMMED WASEEM, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, SINCE MINOR R/BY RESPONDENT NO.1 MOTHER. …RESPONDENTS (R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R2-MINOR REP. BY R1) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.190/2023 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.22 15:55:14 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5251 RPFC No. 100193 of 2024 HON’BLE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI IN 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 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent-husband assailing the order dated 30.08.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.190/2023, on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short “the Family Court”) granting maintenance to the respondents herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank before the Family Court. 3. The petition averments are that the petitioner No.1 married the respondent-husband during May-2012 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-husband was not taking care of the petitioners and also he was having extra marital affair with one Sana and therefore, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and residing separately as the respondent has neglected the petitioners. It is also stated that the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5251 RPFC No. 100193 of 2024 petitioner No.1 has filed O.S.No.10/2021 before the I- Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi seeking dissolution of marriage. Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl.Mis.No.190/2023 seeking maintenance. 3.1. After service of notice the respondent entered appearance before the Family Court and filed detailed objections alleging remarks against the petitioner No.1-wife that the she was not taking care of the family. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 3.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 30.08.2024 granted maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and ₹12,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 4. Sri.Praveen Prabhakar Tarikar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that the award of maintenance by the Family Court is on the higher side and therefore, referring to the salary of respondent-husband as ₹38,000/- per month and as he has to take care of his second - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5251 RPFC No. 100193 of 2024 wife and their children and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent- husband was solemnized during May-2012 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. A perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that O.S.No.10/2021 is filed by the petitioner No.1-wife seeking dissolution of marriage against the respondent-husband. Therefore, it clear that the parties are residing separately. Taking into consideration the admission made by the RW1 in the evidence that he is getting salary of ₹42,000/- per month, I am of the view that the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 6. 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.: 18