- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:48 RPFC No. 100115 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100115 OF 2019 (-) BETWEEN: SRI.VIJAYENDRA S/O. RAGHUNATH INAMADAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: JADJI BHAVI HOSAYALLAPUR, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.BHARATI W/O. VIJAYENDRA INAMADAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: PLOT NO.231 GHODAKE PLOT, ANANDA NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. KUMARI MANASA D/O. VIJAYENDRA INAMADAR, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: PLOT NO.231 GHODAKE PLOT, Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:48 RPFC No. 100115 of 2019 ANANDA NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. KUMARI MAHATI D/O. VIJAYENDRA INAMADAR, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: PLOT NO.231 GHODAKE PLOT, ANANDA NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. RESSPONDENT NO.2 TO 3 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY M/G NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1, SMT.BHARATI W/O VIJAYENDRA INAMADAR. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) ------- THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI IN CRL.MISC.NO.353/2014 DATED 29.08.2019 AND DISMISS THE PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:48 RPFC No. 100115 of 2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.353/2014 on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Hubballi (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’) challenging the order dated 29.08.2019 allowing the claim petition in part. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the petitioner No.1 has married the respondent therein on 27.01.2005 at Krishnaswamy Kalyan Mantap, Hubballi and in their wedlock two children were born i.e., petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein). It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent is having house and immovable properties at Dharwad and he is financially sound. However, it is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent is not taking care of petitioners therein except his mother and sister and as such deprived the rights of the petitioners including not providing food and clothes to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:48 RPFC No. 100115 of 2019 petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.353/2014 on the file of the Family Court. 4. After service of summons, the respondent entered appearance and denied the averments made in the petition except admitting the marriage with respondent No.1 herein. 5. It is the specific contention of respondent No.1 that, the petitioner No.1 is intending to work at Beauty Parlour and same was resisted by the petitioner herein and as such, respondent No.1 denied the averments made in the petition and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties and taking into consideration the documents adduced by the parties by order dated 29.08.2019, allowed the claim petition in part by directing the respondent/petitioner herein to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.2,000/- per month each to the children i.e., petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.353/2014 has filed this revision petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:48 RPFC No. 100115 of 2019 7. Heard Sri. M. C. Hukkeri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Notice issued to respondents is held sufficient. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the grant of maintenance in favour of respondent No.1-wife is incorrect as the respondent No.1 herein herself left the matrimonial home without any cause and that apart, the finding recorded by the Family Court is contrary to the records and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. 9. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner herein with respondent No.1 herein was solemnized on 27.01.2005 and in their wedlock petitioner Nos.2 and 3/respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein were born to them. 10. On perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would reveals that the parties are living separately and further there is matrimonial dispute in M.C.No.312/2011 which was disposed off on 04.06.2012. It is also be noted that, the petitioner and respondents herein are residing separately. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:48 RPFC No. 100115 of 2019 Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the respondents herein are residing in Hubballi and the petitioner herein is residing separately from the respondents herein and also taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraph Nos.19 to 23 of the impugned order, I am of the view that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, I am declined to interfere with well reasoned judgment rendered by the Family Court. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) SMM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1