- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:399 RPFC No. 100095 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100095 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. KARTHIK PATIL S/O. LATE BASAVANA GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS/AGRICULTURIST, R/O: WARD NO. 30, NEAR MAHADEV THATA MATA, CANTONMENT, BALLARI – 583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAVANYA ALIAA ASHWINI W/O. KARTHIK PATIL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. WARD NO. 31 SOWDAGAR COLONY, 2ND CROSS, PLOT NO. 48 BALLARI, NEAR OPD CANTONMENT BALLARI – 583101. 2. MASTER DAKSHA S/O. KARTHIK PATIL, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER GUARDIAN SMT. LAVANYA ALIAS ASHWINI, W/O. KARTHIK PATIL V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.16 12:35:57 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:399 RPFC No. 100095 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. WARD NO.31 SOWDAGAR COLONY 2ND CROSS, PLOT NO. 48 BALLARI - 583101. 3. KUMARI JYOSHNA D/O. KARTHIK PATIL, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER GUARDIAN, SMT. LAVANYA ALIAS ASHWINI W/O. KARTHIK PATIL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. WARD NO. 31, SOWDAGAR COLONY, 2ND CROSS, PLOT NO. 48, BALLARI – 583101. …RESPONDENTS (R1 - POSTAL SHARA AS `REFUSED`; R2 & R3 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) ------ THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BALLARI IN CRIMINAL MISC 339/2022. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:399 RPFC No. 100095 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed by the respondent-husband challenging the order dated 16.12.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.339/ 2022 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short “Family Court”). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.339/ 2022 that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent-husband was solemnized on 06.12.2013 at Ballari and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 and 3 were born. It is stated in the petition that the respondent-husband was not taking care of the needs of the petitioners and was suspecting the character of petitioner No.1. The petitioners could not tolerate the inhuman treatment by the respondent-husband and left the matrimonial home and started residing with the parents of petitioner No.1. Hence, the petitions have filed Crl.Misc.No.339/2022 seeking maintenance under Section 125 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:399 RPFC No. 100095 of 2024 of Cr.P.C. On service of notice the respondent-husband entered appearance, however has not filed statement of objections. However, thereafter the respondent has filed an affidavit showing that he has no means to take care of the petitioners and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. In order to establish their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondent-husband was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 16.12.2023 allowed the claim petition in part holding that the petitioner No.1 is entitled for monthly maintenance of ₹3,000/- and petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for monthly maintenance of ₹4,000/- each from the respondent-husband. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that the respondent No.1 herein/wife is working in a local four wheeler showroom and earning sufficient - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:399 RPFC No. 100095 of 2024 income. That apart, she is also working as a vehicle seizer in Bajaj Finance Limited and earning ₹8,000/- per month and therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner herein has no means to take care of the respondents herein. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner herein and respondent No.1 herein was solemnized on 06.12.2013 at Ballari and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 and 3 were born. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the parties are residing separately. Having taken note of the finding recorded by the Family Court, it would indicate the laxity on the part of the petitioner herein, as no objection was filed to the main petition nor produced any document before the Family Court. It is also to be noted that as the respondents herein are residing separately and respondents 2 and 3 are aged about 8 and 9 years, respectively, grant of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper, which does not call for interference of this Court, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:399 RPFC No. 100095 of 2024 the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348. 9. In view of above discussion, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6