- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2195 RPFC No. 100120 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100120 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. SOUDHARMA S/O BHARAT KOPPA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: VIKRAMPUR, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND RAGHAVENDRA MATH, ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI- 591304. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D. A. BHANDEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BHAKTI W/O. SOUDHARMA KOPPA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NO. 100A, A.R.T. NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, NEAR ORIENTAL SCHOOL, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI- 580030. 2. KUMARI SHRIPADMA D/O. SOUDHARMA KOPPA, AGE: 2 YEARS, OCC: NIL, (SINCE MINOR HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN THE RESPONDENT NO. 1) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUSHA V. SANGAMI, SRI. GANESH S. JITURI, AND SMT. ASAMA N. M, ADVOCATES) ----- THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, IS PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.11 16:18:10 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2195 RPFC No. 100120 of 2023 EXAMINE THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CRL. MISC. NO. 119/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI, AS TO THE CORRECTNESS, LEGALITY OR PROPRIETY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO. 119/2022 DATED 01/03/2023, BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER 1. In this Revision Petition the respondent-husband is challenging the order dated 01.03.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.119 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubbali, granting maintenance to the petitioners. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage with the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 21.04.2017 at Nippani. It is stated in the petition that, the respondent and his family - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2195 RPFC No. 100120 of 2023 members have made a demand for dowry and harassing the petitioner-wife for not meeting their demands and as such, the petitioner No.1 has left the matrimonial home along with the child. It is stated in the petition that, respondent was not taking care of the needs of the petitioner-wife and she is residing at her parent’s house along with the child and accordingly, petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.119 of 2022, seeking maintenance from respondent-husband. 4. After the service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioner No.1 has left the matrimonial home without any cause and as such, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 01.03.2023 awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2195 RPFC No. 100120 of 2023 petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.2-child. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this Revision Petition. 6. I have heard Sri. D.A.Bhandekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband and Smt. Anusha V. Sangami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-wife and child. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel Sri. D.A. Bhandekar, appearing for the petitioner that, the respondent No.1-wife is a B.Com Graduate and she is capable of earning and she is also working at JSS School, Dharwad, and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, petitioner-husband is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2195 RPFC No. 100120 of 2023 ready to join the company of the respondents and therefore, sought for interference of this court. 9. Per contra, Smt. Anusha V. Sangami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family court and also refers to the finding recorded by Family court at paragraphs 33 and 38 to support her arguments. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not dispute that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 21.04.2017 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 is born. Perusal of the finding recorded by Family Court would indicate about family rift and parties are residing separately. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that, the respondent-husband is a Businessman and also Wholesale Distributor of Parle, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2195 RPFC No. 100120 of 2023 Britannia and Cadburys etc., and same is forthcoming from Exs.P11 and P12. In that view of the matter, though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the respondent No.1-wife is a B.Com Graduate, however, nothing is produced before the Family Court to substantiate that the petitioner No.1 is working and therefore, I am of the opinion that, the finding recorded by Family Court is just and proper and no interference is called for in this petition. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19