- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:253 RPFC NO.100061 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100061 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. RAJU S/O KRISHNA NILAJKAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC.: EX-SERVICEMAN AND PRIVATE SERVIE/ AGRICULTURE, R/O C/O NAMDEV SHIRLYACHE, MARUTI GALLI, SAMBRA, BELAGAVI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 591 124. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. POOJA W/O RAJU NILAJKAR AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O TURAMARI, BELAGAVI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 591 128. 2. KUMARI SAMRUDHI D/O RAJU NILAJKAR AGE: 11 YEARS OCC.: STUDENT R/O TURAMARI, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.10 16:38:57 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:253 RPFC NO.100061 OF 2024 BELAGAVI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 591 128. SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER SMT. POOJA-RESPONDENT NO.1. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. MANOJ N. BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC FILED IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01ST APRIL, 2024 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.314 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCDURE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH) This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.314 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), challenging the order - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:253 RPFC NO.100061 OF 2024 dated 01st April, 2024, allowing the petition filed for maintenance in-part. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of 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-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized during the month of May-2011 and in their wedlock, two children were born. Petitioner No.2-daughter is residing with the petitioner No.1- mother and another male child is residing with the respondent- husband. It is stated in the petition that the respondent- husband was not taking care of the basic needs of the family by providing food, clothes and medicine and as such, the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.314 of 2021 before the Family Court for maintenance. 4. On service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed objections denying the averments made in the petition. It is the specific contention of the respondent- husband that the petitioner No.1-wife left the matrimonial - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:253 RPFC NO.100061 OF 2024 home without any reasonable cause and the respondent- husband is a retired Ex-serviceman having pension of Rs.14,700/- per month and he has to take care of one child and his mother. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner-wife examined herself as PW1 and got marked 32 documents as Exhibits P1 to P32. On the other hand, respondent-husband examined himself as RW1 and no documents were produced. 6. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 01st April, 2024, allowed the petition in- part and directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2-daughter. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband preferred this revision petition. 7. Heard Sri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband and Sri. S.R. Hiremath and Sri. Manoj N. Bikkannavar, learned counsel appearing for respondents. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:253 RPFC NO.100061 OF 2024 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband submits that the petitioner herein is Ex-serviceman and he is getting pension of Rs.14,700/- per month. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband contended that he is paying maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to his father despite, taking care of his aged mother and a male child and therefore, the finding recorded by the Family Court is contrary to records. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents herein sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court and by referring to the Exhibits P3 to P32, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the respondent No.2-daughter of the petitioner-husband and respondent No.1-wife is having health ailments suffering from kidney decease and as such, sought for dismissal of the petition. 10. Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. It is also not in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:253 RPFC NO.100061 OF 2024 dispute that, there are two children born in wedlock to the petitioner-husband and the respondent No.1-wife. It is also not disputed by the parties that respondent No.2-daughter is residing with her mother-respondent No.1 and another male child is residing with the petitioner-husband. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband contended that the petitioner herein is getting pension of Rs.14,700/- per month and despite taking care of his mother, he is paying Rs.5,000/- to his father as a maintenance, however, the said aspect cannot be considered in view of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATHY vs. BIDYUT PRAVA DIXIT AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348 and in the case of RAJATHI vs. C. GANESAN reported in AIR 1999 SC 2374. The grant of maintenance to the wife and children is for sustenance in view of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BHUWAN MOHAN SINGH vs. MEENA AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:253 RPFC NO.100061 OF 2024 11. Registry is directed to release the amount in deposit, if any, made by the petitioner herein in favour of the respondent No.1-wife, after due identification. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36