- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5649 RPFC No. 100126 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100126 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. NAZEER HUSSAIN S/O. HONNUR SAB, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NEKRTC BUS DRIVER, GANGAVATHI DEPOT, R/O. GANGAVATHI TALUQ, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.A. PATHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. P. NOORJAHAN @ RAJAMMA W/O. FORMER H. NAZEER HUSSAIN, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KATEGUDDA, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RESHMA MADIWALAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO THE RECORDS OF CRIMINAL MISC.NO.19/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI DISPOSED ON 10.08.2022 MAY KINDLY BE CALLED FOR, AND ORDER OF MAINTENANCE PASSED IN THE ABOVE CASE DIRECTING THIS PETITIONER TO PAY MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.7500/- TO THE RESPONDENT FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TO THE PETITIONER. AND ALSO DIRECTED THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE LITIGATION COST OF RS.10,000/-TOWARDS THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRESENT PETITION. MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5649 RPFC No. 100126 of 2022 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 This petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.19/2021, challenging the order dated 10.08.2022 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the petitioner therein. 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 petitioner that, the marriage between the petitioner – wife with the respondent was solemnized on 25.04.1997 and the marriage was dissolved as per the compromise petition dated 22.03.2014 in OS No.6/2014. It is also stated that, no alimony was paid to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner – wife that, in their wedlock a daughter was born and she has completed her M.Com., and staying with - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5649 RPFC No. 100126 of 2022 the mother – petitioner. It is also stated that, the petitioner has not re-married and not able to take care of the family and therefore, sought for maintenance from the respondent – husband. Hence, the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.19/2021 seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection stating that the compromise has been made before the Lok Adalath and Rs.50,000/- in the form of Fixed Deposit was made in the name of daughter. It is the case of the respondent that, as the petitioner has not made any claim and she being divorcee, the petition requires to be dismissed. It is also stated in the statement of objection that, the respondent has married another lady and in their wedlock three children were born. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 10.08.2022 granted maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the petitioner- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5649 RPFC No. 100126 of 2022 wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent- husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. M. A. Pathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Reshma Madiwalar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, as the permanent maintenance has been made as per Ex.R5 and the dissolution of marriage has been made in OS No.6/20104 and therefore, finding recorded by the Family Court requires to be interfered with. 8. Per contra, Smt. Reshma Madiwalar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein sought to justify the impugned order and contended that, the petitioner herein is misguiding in all respects not only in the Family Court but also before this Court and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition with imposition of exemplary costs. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5649 RPFC No. 100126 of 2022 examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. It is not in dispute that, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent – husband was solemnized on 25.04.1997 and in their wedlock a daughter is born and she is residing with the petitioner. It is also to be noted that, the respondent – husband has married and having children through his second wife. It is also to be noted that, the respondent is working as a Driver in NEKRTC, and perusal of finding recorded by the Family Court as per the salary certificate produced at Ex.R4 that, the salary of the respondent- husband during May-2021 is Rs.29,071/-. It is to be noted that at present the salary of the respondent – husband is definitely enhanced by the employer - NEKRTC. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that, the petitioner is residing separately and also as there is dissolution of marriage in terms of the order passed in OS No.6/2014, I am of the view that, the petitioner – wife is entitled for maintenance as there is no settlement of permanent alimony in OS No.6/2014. It is also to be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5649 RPFC No. 100126 of 2022 noted that, the divorcee-wife is also entitled for maintenance till she re-marries and same is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal And Others1. In that view of the matter, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein cannot be accepted. 11. It is also to be noted that, the respondent herein- wife is residing at Ballari and she has to take care of her daughter and therefore, I am of the view that, the award of maintenance by the Family Court requires to be confirmed in this petition. The Family Court has fixed the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- towards proceedings and therefore, taking into consideration the fact that, this Court was misguided by the petitioner on the last occasion to dispose off the petition and thereafter, the petition was moved for being spoken to by the respondent herein, I am of the view that, the petitioner shall pay the cost of 1 AIR 1978 SC 1807 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5649 RPFC No. 100126 of 2022 Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent –wife. 12. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1