- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3308 RPFC No. 100148 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100148 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. YADAGIRI SRINIVASULU S/O. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT H.NO. 871 N.MIG, 17TH CROSS, NEW TOWN YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANESH RAIBAGI, SRI. YOGESH GOUDA AND SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY C.D., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. SHAILAJA.V. W/O. YADAGIRI SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 2. SRI. SUPREETH Y.S. S/O. YADAGIRI SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 3. JAGRUTHI D/O. YADAGIRI SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 REPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT PLOT NO. 25, GAVISIDDESHWARA COLONY, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3308 RPFC No. 100148 of 2023 GOPANAKOPPA, HUBBALLI HUBBALLI-580053. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT HUBBALLI IN CRIL. MISC. NO.61/2020 DATED 26.05.2023, 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 2. This petition is filed by the respondent assailing the order dated 26.05.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.61/2020 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the respondents herein. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 21.05.1998 and in their wedlock two children were born (petitioner Nos.2 and 3). It is also stated in the petition that, the respondent was not taking care of the needs of the petitioners and has neglected the petitioners even to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3308 RPFC No. 100148 of 2023 provide basic necessities and as such, the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.61/2020 seeking maintenance. It is also contended by the petitioners that, the respondent had filed MC No.215/2016 against the petitioners which came to be dismissed on 22.11.2019. Hence, the petitioners sought for maintenance under Section 123 of Cr.P.C. 5. Upon service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection denying the averments insofar as allegation made against him. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioners without any cause left the matrimonial home and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 26.05.2023 granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 7. I have heard Sri. Ganesh Raibagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Girish S. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3308 RPFC No. 100148 of 2023 8. Sri. Ganesh Raibagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Family Court has committed an error in not considering the fact that, the petitioner has proved before the Family Court that the respondent No.1 – wife is leading immoral life and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 8.1. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Family Court has not considered the registered sale deed dated 25.09.2010 (Ex.R1) in the right perspective and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, Sri. Girish S. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order. 10. In the light of submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the marriage of petitioner with the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 21.05.1998 at Hubballi and in their wedlock two children were born. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioners were neglected by the respondent-husband. On the other hand the contention of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3308 RPFC No. 100148 of 2023 the respondent-husband that the petitioner No.1 is having illicit relationship with one P. Surendara, accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 11. Taking into account the fact that, under Section 125 of CPC it is measure to remove the destitution and vagrancy of wife and children and this Court by looking into the fact that the respondent-husband has admitted the relationship with the petitioner and therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 12. It is also to be noted that as per Ex.P14 the gross salary of the petitioner herein is Rs.1,04,543/- for the month of November-2021 and therefore, the grant of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference in this petition. 13. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4