- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1719 RPFC No. 100214 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100133 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100214 OF 2023 (-) C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100133 OF 2023 IN RPFC NO.100214/2023 BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMED ALI S/O. M.HASAN VALI, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O.NO.49, WARD NO.5, LALKAMAN, BALLARI, PRESENTLY R/O.NO.19 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, JHBSC LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARATHI G. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S. AFREEN W/O. MOHAMMAD ALI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. ENGINEER, D/O. DASTAGIR SAB, 2. MASTER MOHAMMED HUSSAIN ALI, S/O. MOHAMMAD ALI MINOR REPRESENTED BY M/G SMT. S. AFREEN W/O. MOHAMMAD ALI, BOTH ARE DOOR NO. 47 R/O.WARD NO.26, TEACHERS COLONY, NEAR TAHA MASJID JAGRUTI NAGAR, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI DIST. BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE) V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.10 16:46:59 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1719 RPFC No. 100214 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100133 of 2023 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE TRAIL COURT AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARY, IN CR.MISC.102/2020 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN RPFC NO.100133/2023 BETWEEN: S AFREEN W/O. M. H. MOHAMMED ALI D/O. DASTGIR SAB, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.47, W.NO.26 TEACHERS COLONY, OPP. ABDUL TAWAF MASJID, COWL BAZAAR, DIST. BALLARI-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: MOHAMMED ALI S/O. HASAN VALI AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE IN UNION BANK OF INDIA, R/O. D.NO.49, WARD NO.5, LALAKAMAN, BELLARI, NOW AT SC ROAD, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, UNION BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHARATHI G. BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BALLARI, IN CRL. MISC NO.102/2020, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. AND ALLOW THE CRL. MISC NO.102/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT: BALLARI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1719 RPFC No. 100214 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100133 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER These Revision Petitions are arising out of order dated 20.06.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.102 of 2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari, granting maintenance to the petitioner No.2 (child) and rejection of application filed for maintenance by the petitioner No.1. 3. RPFC No.100133 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner-wife in Crl.Misc.No.102 of 2020 on the file of Principal Judge, Family court at Bellari, rejecting the application for maintenance of the petitioner No.1. 4. RPFC No.100214 of 2023 is filed by the respondent-husband in Crl.Misc.No.102 of 2020 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bellari, challenging the order dated 20.06.2023, for granting maintenance to the petitioner No.2-child. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1719 RPFC No. 100214 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100133 of 2023 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to their status and ranking before the Family Court. 6. It is the case of the petitioners (wife and child) that marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 20.12.2019 as per the customs prevailing in Mahomedan Community. In their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. It is stated in the claim petition that, respondent-husband was ill- treating the petitioner-wife and he was used to mention to others that petitioner No.1 is of dark complexion and not a good match for him. Therefore, in view of difference between the parties, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents at Bellari. Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.102 of 2020 before the Family Court, for maintenance. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1719 RPFC No. 100214 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100133 of 2023 7. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance and denied the allegations made in the claim petition and stated that, he is working as Clerk- cum-Cashier in Union Bank of India, Bengaluru. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioner No.1 left matrimonial home without any cause and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition filed for maintenance before the Family Court. 8. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 20.06.2023, dismissed the claim petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned and awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of application for maintenance, the petitioner-wife has preferred RPFC No.100133 of 2023 and respondent-husband has filed RPFC No.100214 of 2023, challenging the maintenance granted to the petitioner No.2-child. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1719 RPFC No. 100214 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100133 of 2023 9. I have heard, Sri. Santhosh B. Mane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-wife and child and Smt. Bharati G. Bhat, learned counsel for respondent- husband. 10. Smt. Bharati G. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband argued that Family Court without considering the pleadings on record, in the right perspective, has granted maintenance to the petitioner No.2-child, which is incorrect. She further contended that petitioner No.1 (Wife) has left the company of the respondent-husband without any reasonable grounds and therefore, awarding maintenance to the petitioner No.2 child does not arise. It is also contended by the learned counsel that, the petitioner-wife is a Graduate in Engineering and therefore, no maintenance be awarded to the petitioners. Accordingly, she sought for interference of this Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1719 RPFC No. 100214 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100133 of 2023 11. Per Contra, Sri. Santhosh B. Mane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-wife and child submitted that, the petitioner No.1 has left the matrimonial home having not tolerated the inhuman treatment by the respondent-husband. Petitioners have no means for their livelihood, as petitioner-wife is not working, and accordingly, sought for maintenance before the Family Court and same was erroneously considered by the Family Court. Hence, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-wife and child, sought for interference of this Court. He further contended that, the petitioner No.1-wife has not completed her Graduation in Engineering and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 12. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as the marriage between the parties was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1719 RPFC No. 100214 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100133 of 2023 solemnized on 20.12.2019. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-wife was residing with the respondent–husband in the conjugal home for sometime and thereafter, she left the matrimonial home for the reasons stated in the claim petition. It is also to be noted that the respondent-husband is working in Union Bank of India and the petitioner- wife, is not working and no acceptable evidence has produced before the Family Court in order to ascertain the occupation/avocation of the petitioner-wife. In that view of the matter, the Family court has committed an error in rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner-wife and the reasons assigned by the Family Court, cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that, the petitioner-wife has registered criminal case against the respondent-husband in Crime No.109 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, which - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1719 RPFC No. 100214 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100133 of 2023 makes it clear that, the parties are residing separately. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the Family court has committed an error in rejecting the application insofar as the claim of the petitioner-wife is concerned and accordingly, the petition in RPFC No.100133 of 2023 is liable to be allowed by setting aside the order dated 20.06.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.102 of 2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari, only insofar as rejecting the application for maintenance to the petitioner-wife is concerned and accordingly, RPFC No.100133 of 2023 is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Family court for quantification of maintenance to be payable to the petitioner-wife, after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Insofar RPFC No.100124 of 2024 filed by the respondent-husband, challenging the maintenance ordered to the petitioner No.2-child is concerned, I am - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1719 RPFC No. 100214 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100133 of 2023 of the opinion that, no acceptable grounds has been urged by the respondent-husband for rejecting the maintenance to the child as the petitioner No.2-child is residing with the petitioner No.1-wife. On the other hand, respondent- husband is working in Union Bank of India as Clerk-cum-Cashier. In that view of the matter, I do not find any acceptable grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.06.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.102 of 2020 passed by the Family court insofar as awarding maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner No.2-child. Accordingly, RPFC No.100214 of 2023 filed by the respondent-husband is hereby dismissed. All Interlocutory applications in these petitions shall stand closed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19