- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4355 RPFC No. 100121 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100121 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI. DINESH S/O. RAMACHANDRA PAWAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ROOM NO.1, BUILDING NO.C, SAIWADI VIKAS CHS, N.S. PHADKE MARG, NEAR SUBA GALAXY HOTEL, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARSHTRA-400069. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. ASHA W/O. DINESH PAWAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NO.125, SAMBHAJI ROAD, KASBAG, BELAGAVI-590003. …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI UNDER CRL.MISC.NO.249/2017 DATED 05.02.2024 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4355 RPFC No. 100121 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent, challenging the order dated 05.02.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.249/2017 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the respondent herein. 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 with the respondent was solemnized on 17.09.2012 at Mumbai. The petitioner and the respondent came in contact with each other through Bharat Matrimony Marriage Website. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent was not taking care of needs of the petitioner and was abusing the petitioner in filthy language and also it is the contention of the petitioner that, the respondent – husband was completely under the control of his mother and sister and hence, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home without tolerating - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4355 RPFC No. 100121 of 2024 the humiliation at the hands of the respondent. It is also stated in the petition that, the petitioner was pregnant at the time of leaving the matrimonial home and suffered miscarriage and even afterwards the respondent has not taken care of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.249/2017, seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objection denying the allegation made against the respondent and his family members. It is the specific contention of the respondent that, the petitioner was preparing food for herself only and not preparing food for the respondent and his family members and also, the petitioner was adamant in nature and not respecting the respondent. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 05.02.2024 granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4355 RPFC No. 100121 of 2024 Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Harshawardhan M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that, the respondent herein has left the matrimonial home without any cause and the respondent herein has no respect for the petitioner herein and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 17.09.2012. 9. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that, the parties are residing separately and also the respondent herein has filed petition in Criminal Miscellaneous No.17/2019 before the III JMFC Court, Belagavi, under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. This would makes it clear that, the parties are residing separately. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4355 RPFC No. 100121 of 2024 10. Taking into consideration the fact that, the respondent herein is residing at Belagavi city and petitioner has neglected to look after the respondent herein, I am of the opinion that, the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and no interference is called for in this petition. 11. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. 12. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending applications, if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7