SHRI MAHESH SHANTARAM SOMAIJICHE v. SMT. SAROJA W/O MAHESH SOMAJICHE
RPFC/100093/2024 · 2025-03-12
E S Indiresh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5097 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5097 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4670 RPFC No. 100093 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100093 OF 2024 (-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI MAHESH SHANTARAM SOMAIJICHE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR (GOUNDI WORK), R/O. MARATHA COLONY, BEHIND KALMESHWAR CO-OP SOCIETY, B.K. KANGRALI, TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SAROJA W/O. MAHESH SOMAJICHE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. C/O. LAXMAN BHAIRU PAWAR, H.NO.656, RAITH GALLI, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENT
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED MAINTENANCE ORDER DATED 17.02.2024 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI IN CRIL.MISC. NO.295/2019 AND ALLOW THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4670 RPFC No. 100093 of 2024
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent in Crl.Misc.No.295/2019 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Belagavi, granting maintenance to the respondent herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner led conjugal life for a few months. It is stated that respondent and his step-mother used to assault the petitioner and that when she was pregnant, they locked her in a room for two to three days. Thereafter, the petitioner has lodged a complaint in Kakati Police Station. It is also stated that after the birth of second child, the petitioner was forced to do hard work by the respondent and respondent was not taking
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4670 RPFC No. 100093 of 2024
care of health of the petitioner as the petitioner had left matrimonial house.
4. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections denying the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner used to visit her parental home without informing the respondent or his family members. Petitioner has also filed a false case against the family members of the respondent and accordingly, the respondent has sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its Order dated 17.02.2024, granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed the present petition.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that award of maintenance by the Family Court requires to be interfered with as the respondent herein has herself left the matrimonial home and stayed with her parents.
7. Having taken note of the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, on careful examination of the
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4670 RPFC No. 100093 of 2024
finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2007 and from their wedlock two children were born. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court and the Judgment in M.C.No185/2007, I am of the view that parties are residing separately. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner herein has neglected his wife/respondent herein and that the respondent is residing at Belagavi City, I am of the view that the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and no interference is called for in this petition.
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
sac CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10