- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5237 RPFC No. 100172 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100172 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: MANJUNATH S/O. SANNABASAPPA BANDYAL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. YATNATTI, POST: YOJANAHALLI, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL 583231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERESH GADDADA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O. MANJUNATH BANDYAL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, C/O. TIPPANNA S/O. FAKAKIRAPPA WALIKAR, R/O. TQ: KALAGHATAGI VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 2. KUMAR MOHAN S/O. MANJUNATH BANDYAL, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, C/O. TIPPANNA S/O. FAKAKIRAPPA WALIKAR, R/O. TQ: KALAGHATAGI VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 3. KUMAR MOHIT MOHAN S/O. MANJUNATH BANDYAL, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, C/O. TIPPANNA S/O. FAKAKIRAPPA WALIKAR, R/O. TQ: KALAGHATAGI VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. NOTE: THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY ITS NATURAL GUARDIAN OF RESPONDENT NO.1. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.22 15:55:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5237 RPFC No. 100172 of 2023 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KALAGHATAGI IN CRL.MISC. NO.114/2021 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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.114/2021, challenging the order dated 21.04.2022 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the petitioners 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 petitioners that, the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 19.01.2009 and in their wedlock two children were born (petitioner Nos.2 and 3). It is the case - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5237 RPFC No. 100172 of 2023 of the petitioners that, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home having not tolerating the mental and physical agony caused to them and are residing separately. 4. After service of notice, the respondent- husband, accepted the notice however, has not contested the matter on merits. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 21.04.2022 granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month each to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Veersh Gaddada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. R. H. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the award of maintenance by the Family Court is on the higher side and the Trial Court has not considered the fact that, the petitioners themselves have - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5237 RPFC No. 100172 of 2023 left the matrimonial home and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. It is not in dispute that, the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent – husband was solemnized on 19.01.2009 and in their wedlock two children were born. 10. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would makes it clear that, the parties are residing separately. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court that, the respondents herein are residing separately and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 – children are minor and therefore, 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5237 RPFC No. 100172 of 2023 11. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11