- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2941 RPFC No. 100144 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100144 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. SOMASHEKHAR S/O. GOVINDAPPA JUTTAL, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. POLICE INSPECTOR, R/O. KAMADOLLI, TQ. KUNDAGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-580021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAURABH A SONDUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MANJULA W/O. SOMASHEKHAR JUTTAL, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. Y.F. DALAYAT, NEW GABBUR, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580021. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SATISH S. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2022 PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI IN CRL. MISC. NO.279/2017 FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. AND DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, 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 V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.17 11:50:46 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2941 RPFC No. 100144 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner herein challenging the order dated 30.09.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.279/2017 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (for short “the Family Court”) granting maintenance to the respondent herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the marriage between petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnised on 04.04.2014 and in their wedlock no issues were born. It is also stated in the petition that after marriage, the respondent- husband and his family members were abusing the petitioner- wife to get dowry from her parental house and also the respondent-husband was not taking care of the petitioner-wife and as such, the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home, hence, the petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.279/2017 before the Family Court, seeking maintenance from the respondent- husband on the ground that she has no means for livelihood. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2941 RPFC No. 100144 of 2023 3.1. On service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance before the Family Court and filed detailed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the respondent-husband that the petitioner-wife herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause and also she never co-operated for conjugal rights and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 30.09.2022 allowed the petition in part by granting maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband filed this petition. 4. It is contended by Sri.Sourabh A Sondur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, that the Family Court has committed an error in quantifying the maintenance without considering the factual aspects that the respondent herein is well qualified and she can get any job and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2941 RPFC No. 100144 of 2023 5. Per Contra, Sri.Satish S Raichur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein sought to justify the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised on 04.04.2014 and thereafter the petitioner-wife lead marital life with the respondent for some time and left the matrimonial home. A perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that mutual allegation of fidelity has been made by the parties and therefore, the parties are residing separately. It is also not in dispute that the respondent- husband is working as a police inspector. It is also forthcoming from the findings recorded by the Family Court that FIR has been registered against the respondent-husband in Women Police Station, Hubballi in Crime No.11/2018. In that view of the matter taking into consideration the status of the respondent-husband, who is working as a police inspector, I am of the view that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is just and proper and accordingly, no interference - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2941 RPFC No. 100144 of 2023 is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 7. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5