- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2820 RPFC No. 100135 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100135 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. SANGAMESH KALAGI ALIAS SALEEM S/O.ARJUN KALAGI, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. DAR POLICE CONSTABLE, APC NO.271 R/O. DAR POLICE QUARTERS HOUSE NO.E-13 NEAR DAR GROUND, S.N.PET, COURT ROAD, BALLARI, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF RNIHAL VILLAGE AND POST, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEVADI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR -586101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, SMT. PALLVAI S. PACHHAPURE AND SRI. RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. SHAKILA ALIAS SHRUTI KALAGI W/O. SANGAMESH KALAGI @ SALEEM AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DAR POLICE QUARTERS HOUSE NO.E-13, NEAR DAR GROUND, S.N.PET, COURT ROAD, BALLARI – 583101. 2. KUMARI SWATI @ DANIYA FATHIMA D/O. SANGAMESH KALAGI @ SALEEM AGE. 9 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, 3. KUMARI SONI D/O. SANGAMESH KALAGI @ SALEEM, AGE. 4 YEARS, OCC. NIL, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.15 12:17:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2820 RPFC No. 100135 of 2022 THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER MINOR GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) ----- THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI IN CRL. MISC. NO. 20/2020 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.20 of 2020 challenging the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Bellari, granting maintenance to the petitioners therein. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2820 RPFC No. 100135 of 2022 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 09.12.2010 at Kampli Town. In their wedlock, four children were born among them, two died due the harassment and cruelty by of the respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent has neglected the petitioners and not provided basic needs and as such, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.20 of 2020 seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner No.1 was harassing the respondent for filing various complaints - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2820 RPFC No. 100135 of 2022 against him for which, the respondent-husband has suffered mental agony and respondent is having no means to pay the maintenance. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 20.07.2021 allowed the petition in part and awarded Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3.. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition 6. I have heard Sri. Srinand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. G. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the question of neglecting or refusing to maintain the respondents herein does not arise as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2820 RPFC No. 100135 of 2022 the respondents herein had harassed the petitioner herein and also the petitioner had taken second marriage which also came to be dissolved and he has been ousted by the respondents herein. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned passed by the Family Court. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 09.12.2010 and in their wedlock four children were born and two children are no more. It is also forthcoming that complaints in Crime No.210 of 2016 and Crime No.258 of 2016 as well as MC No.14 of 2020 are filed against each other. The said aspects make it clear that, the parties are residing - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2820 RPFC No. 100135 of 2022 separately. It is also finding of the Family Court that the petitioner herein is working as a Police Constable and therefore, taking into consideration the salary of the Police Constable, I am of the opinion that, the award maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and same does not call for interference in this petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13