- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5868 RPFC No. 100087 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100087 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: NAGALINGAPPA @ NAGARAJ S/O. MAHADEVAPPA RAJNALKAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: WORKING IN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, R/O. VIDYANAGAR EAST HAVERI, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GEETA W/O. NAGALINGAPPA @ NAGARAJ RAJNALKAR, AGE: ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: HESCOM ON CONTRACT BASIS, R/O. C/O. SURESH K. BADIGER, TAJNAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. AISHWARY D/O. NAGALINGAPPA @ NAGARA RAJNALKAR, AGE: MINOR, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. C/O. SURESH K. BADIGER, TAJNAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. (NOTE: R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND CALL FOR RECORDS OF COURTS BELOW AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI IN CRIMINAL MISC NO.142/2021 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5868 RPFC No. 100087 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent – husband challenging the order dated 11.01.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.142/2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi1 granting maintenance to the respondents herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent – husband was solemnized on 25.02.2008 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is the case of the petitioners that after the marriage, the petitioners were staying in the matrimonial home for few months and thereafter left the matrimonial home as the respondent was physically and mentally harassing petitioner No.1. It is also the case of the petitioners that, 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5868 RPFC No. 100087 of 2024 the respondent has neglected to take care of the petitioners and as such, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home. It is also stated that the petitioner No.1 has filed M.C.No.22/2014 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and in this regard, it is also forthcoming from the revision papers that the respondent – husband has filed M.C.No.96/2012 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which came to be dismissed on 13.12.2013. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent – husband has filed M.C.No.22/2014, and therefore it is case of the petitioners that they were residing separately and accordingly approached the Family Court in Crl.Misc.142/2021 seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection countering the allegation made against him. It is also the case of the respondent husband that the petitioner No.1 – wife was behaving rudely and arrogant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5868 RPFC No. 100087 of 2024 not only against him but also against his parents and also stated that he has filed M.C.No.22/2014 seeking dissolution of marriage and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 11.01.2024, allowed the petition in part by directing the respondent – husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- each to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri.Vidyashankar G Dalawai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is working in a co- operative society and also deposited Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of respondent No.2 herein under sukanya Samruddhi Scheme and same will enure to the benefit of the respondents. It is also contended by the learned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5868 RPFC No. 100087 of 2024 counsel appearing for the petitioner that he has filed M.C.No.22/2014 seeking dissolution of marriage and the said petition came to be allowed against which, the appeal is pending consideration before this Court. 8. He also contended that the respondent No.1 herein is working in HESCOM and drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. and therefore the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought for interference of this Court. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent - husband was solemnized on 25.02.2008 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. Perusal of the proceedings in M.C.No.22/2014 and M.C.No.96/2012 as well as Crl.Misc 37/2014 before the competent criminal Court makes, it clear that the parties are residing separately. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that respondent No.1 herein is working at HESCOM and drawing salary of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5868 RPFC No. 100087 of 2024 Rs.15,000 p.m., however taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraph No.52, I am of the view that since the said post is not a permanent and she is work on contract basis and therefore the submission cannot be accepted. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner herein is working as Recovery Officer in Sri.Suvarna Pattina Souharda Sahakari Limited, Haveri, and drawing gross salary of Rs.64,376/- during April 2022 as per the finding recorded by the Family Court, I am of the view that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is just and proper and no interference is called for. 11. Accordingly, the petition fails. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11