- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4874 RPFC No. 100022 of 2023 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. 100022 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI. LOHIT S/O. RAMCHANDRA MUGAD, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHETGAR CHAL, BEHIND MARUTI TEMPLE, BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY MS. VINUTA M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SONAL W/O. LOHIT MUGAD, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEMAKER, R/O. C/O. SRI. C.T. WAGMODE, H.NO. 104, DR. R.K. NAGAR, OPP. BDK, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.11.2021 IN CRL.MISC. NO.128/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI AND DISMISS THE CRL MISC NO.128/2020 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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:4874 RPFC No. 100022 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Challenging the order dated 12.11.2021, this petition is filed by the respondent-husband in Crl.Misc.No.128/2020 on the file of the I-Additional 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-wfie that the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent- husband was solemnized on 19.01.2017 at Hubballi. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner-wife has led marital life for few days comfortably and thereafter harassment was meted out by the petitioner-wife from the respondent-husband as well as his family members. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents. Hence, the petitioner-wife has filed Crl.Misc.No.128/2020 before the family Court seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent-husband. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4874 RPFC No. 100022 of 2023 4. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed objections stating that the petitioner-wife was not looking after needs of the family members of the respondent-husband and also specific allegation is made against the petitioner-wife that the parents of the petitioner-wife have not taken keen interest in resolving the family dispute. Hence, the respondent-husband has sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 12.11.2021 directed the respondent- husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹8,000/- to the petitioner-wife and feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has filed this petition. 6. I have heard Miss. Vinuta M Khannur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband that the petitioner-wife was working at DTDC Courier Company and is earning sufficient salary to lead her independent life and the said aspect of the material has not - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4874 RPFC No. 100022 of 2023 been considered by the Family Court and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife submitted that though interim order was granted by this Court to pay the maintenance, the respondent- husband has not complied with the order and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. 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-wife and the respondent- husband was solemnized on 19.01.2017 and thereafter on account of family rift, the parties are residing separately. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that Crl.Misc.No.17/2020 is filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act, which is pending consideration before the II-JMFC Court at Hubballi. In that view of the matter, it would be considered that the parties are residing separately. Taking into account the fact that the quantification of the monthly maintenance is concerned, though the learned counsel for the respondent-husband has stated that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4874 RPFC No. 100022 of 2023 the petitioner-wife is working in DTDC Courier Company at Hubballi, no acceptable document has been produced before this Court as well as before the Family Court. In that view of the matter, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband cannot be accepted and since the petitioner-wife is residing separately at Hubballi city, the grant of maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month is just and proper and it does not call for interference in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 10. 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.: 7