- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:565 RPFC No. 100079 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100143 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100079 OF 2024 (-) C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100143 OF 2024 IN RPFC NO.100079/2024 BETWEEN: SANDEEP S/O. SHIVAPPA KAKHANDAKI, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE & COOLIE, R/O. ALGUR VILLAGE-587301, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT LAXMI W/O. SANDEEP KAKHANDAKI, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. RAJASHEKHAR S/O. BASAVARAJ MARIHAL, PLOT NO.141, 1ST BUS STOP, RAMTEERTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. KUMARI. VAISHNAVI D/O. SANDEEP KAKHANDAKI, AGE. 09 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. C/O. RAJASHEKHAR S/O. BASAVARAJ MARIHAL, PLOT NO.141, 1ST BUS STOP, RAMTEERTH NAGAR, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.20 10:59:21 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:565 RPFC No. 100079 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100143 of 2024 BELAGAVI-590001. THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR IS R/BY MINOR GUARDIAN HER MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. LAXMI W/O. SANDEEP KAKHANDAKI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. RAJASHEKHAR S/O. BASAVARAJ MARIHAL, PLOT NO.141, 1ST BUS STOP, RAMTEERTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) ------- RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI IN CRL. MISC.NO.513/2018 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN RPFC NO.100143/2024 BETWEEN: 1. LAXMI W/O. SANDEEP KAKHANDAKI, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. RAJESHEKHAR S/O. BASAVARJ MARIHAL PLOT NO.141, 1 BUS STOP, RAMTEERTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI PIN CODE. 590001. 2. KUMARI VAISHNAVI D/O. SANDEEP KAKHANDAKI, AGE. 7 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT (PETITIONER NO.1 BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND/ MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:565 RPFC No. 100079 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100143 of 2024 AND: SANDEEP S/O. SHIVAPPA KAKHANDAKI, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.BIJAPUR ROAD, POTE PLOT BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, NEAR KRISHNA EYE HOSPITAL, JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. PIN CODE. 590098 AND ALSO DOING BUSINESS AT SHOP.SHIVASHAKTI KIRAN SHOP (WHOLESALE AND RETAIL KIRAN SHOP) KIRANA BAZAR JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENT ------- RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/1/2024 CRIMINAL MIS.NO.513/2018 BY THE LEARNED BE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI KINDLY MODIFYING BY ALLOWING REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. These petitions are arising out of the order dated 18.01.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.513/2018 on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:565 RPFC No. 100079 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100143 of 2024 the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their raking before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 30.05.2014 at Belagavi and in their wedlock the petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was not taking care of the petitioners and also insulting the petitioner No.1 frequently stating the he would have marry some other lady instead of the petitioner No.1 and accordingly without tolerating the inhuman treatment meted out by her and as such the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and residing with the father of the petitioner No.1. Hence, the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.513/2018 before the Family Court seeking maintenance. 5. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection admitting the relationship between the petitioners, however, denied the allegations made in the petition. It is the case of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:565 RPFC No. 100079 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100143 of 2024 respondent that he has filed MC No.20/2018 against the petitioner No.1 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and also the said petition came to be allowed. Despite the said fact, the petitioners are not residing with the respondent and also, not interested in continuing the conjugal rights of the parties. It is also stated in the statement of objection that the respondent No.1-wife has completed her MA, B.Ed. and she in a position to work herself accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 18.01.2024 allowed the petition in part, by holding that the petitioners are entitled for maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to be payable by the respondent-husband to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has filed RPFC No.100079/2024 and the petitioners being aggrieved by not satisfied with the quantum of maintenance have filed RPFC No.100143/2024. Hence, these two petitions are before this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. Anil Kale, in RPFC No.100079/2024 argued that the Family Court has committed an error in granting maintenance of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:565 RPFC No. 100079 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100143 of 2024 Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent No.1-wife despite the respondent No.1 is a graduate in MA., B.Ed., and she could earn for herself. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the respondent No.1-wife has not obeyed the order passed by the Family Court in MC No.20/2018 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in RPFC No.100143/2024 argued that the petitioners are residing at Belagavi and it is very difficult for them to live a considerable life. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.1 though graduate in MA., B.Ed., however, she is not working and accordingly, sought for enhancement of maintenance. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as the petitioner No.1 has married the respondent- husband on 30.05.2014 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. On perusal of the finding of the Family Court would indicate that the parties are residing separately and the same is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:565 RPFC No. 100079 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100143 of 2024 forthcoming from the order passed by the competent Family Court in MC No.20/2018. 10. Taking into account the factual aspects on record that the petitioners are residing separately and also taking into account the Ex.Ps.4 to P.7 the record of rights would indicate that the respondent-husband is having immovable property and therefore, award of monthly maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2, is on the lesser side which requires to be enhanced by looking into the fact that the petitioners are residing at Belagavi city and therefore, the respondent-husband is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioners (wife and child) from the date of petition for their livelihood. 11. With these observations, petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM/CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37