- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:512 RPFC No. 100126 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100180 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100126 OF 2024 C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100180 OF 2024 IN RPFC 100126 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUKANYA W/O JEEVANKUMAR PARASHA AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 2. KUMAR RITVIK S/O JEEVANKUMAR PARASHA AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT 3. KUMARI RACHITA D/O JEEVANKUMAR PARASHA AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE RESIDENT AT NANDISHWAR NAGAR, KALASAPUR ROAD, GADAG-582103 (PETITIONER NO 2 AND 3 ARE BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER, PETITIONER NO.1) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.20 10:59:58 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:512 RPFC No. 100126 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100180 of 2024 AND: 1. SHRI JEEVANKUMAR PARASHA S/O PULLAIAH PARASHA, AGE: 36 YRS, OCC: HESCOME EMPLOYEE, R/AT H.NO.159/E, CHETANA COLONY, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL AND P.S.TADAPATRI, ADVOCATES) RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ENHANCE THE MAINTENANCE AS AWARDED THROUGH THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 1ST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, AT GADAG IN CRL.MISC.NO.162/2022 BY ALLOWING THE PETITION AS FILED U/S 125 OF CR.P.C. IN RPFC 100180 OF 2024 BETWEEN: JEEVANKUMAR S/O PULLAIAH PARASAH AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HESCOM EMPLOYEE R/O. H.NO.159/E, CHETANA COLONY, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI-580031. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL AND P.S.TADPATRI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. SUKANYA W/O JEEVAKUMAR PARASHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:512 RPFC No. 100126 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100180 of 2024 AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NANDISHWAR NAGAR, KALASAPURT ROAD, GADAG-582101. 2. KUMAR RITVIK S/O JEEVANKUMAR PARASHA AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O NANDISHWAR NAGAR, KALASAPUR ROAD, GADAG-582101. 3. KUMARI RACHITA W/O JEEVANKUMAR PARASHA AGE: 07 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O NANDISHWAR NAGAR, KALASAPUR ROAD, GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2024, SRI. GOURISHANKAR S.MOT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT (VK NOT FILED) RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISIOIN PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.162/2022 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:512 RPFC No. 100126 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100180 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These petitions are filed against the order dated 07.12.223 in Crl.Misc.No.162/2022 on the file of I-Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag (for short “the Family Court”) allowing the petition in part. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the marriage of petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent-husband was registered on 29.09.2011 at Sub- Registrar Office, Hubballi and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 and 3 were born. It is also stated in the petition that, respondent-husband was not taking care of the needs of petitioner No.1 and pestering the petitioner No.1 to bring dowry and having not tolerated the ill-treatment meted by her and as such, she left the matrimonial home. It is also stated in the petition that since 16.03.2022, the petitioner No.1 is residing with her mother along with children and she has no source of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:512 RPFC No. 100126 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100180 of 2024 income and accordingly, the petitioners have filed petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking maintenance. 4.1. On service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed objections and took up specific contention that the petitioner No.1 is leading immoral life and as such she herself deserted the company of respondent-husband and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 4.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 07.12.2023, allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent-husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and ₹3,000/- each to the petitioner No.2 and 3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented RPFC No.100126/2024 seeking enhancement of maintenance and the respondent- husband has filed RPFC No. 100180/2024 seeking dismissal of the claim petition and to interfere with the finding recorded by the Family Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:512 RPFC No. 100126 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100180 of 2024 5. I have heard Sri.Gourishankar Mot learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (petitioners in Crl.Misc.No. 162/2022 before the Family Court) and learned counsel Smt.P.S.Tadapatri learned counsel appearing for the respondent (respondent in Crl.Misc.No.162/2022 before the Family Court). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/wife and children contended that the grant of maintenance by the Family Court requires to be modified by this Court by enhancing the same, as the petitioner No.1 has to take care of educational expenses of petitioner No.2 and 3 as well as the petitioners are residing at Gadag city and therefore, the award of maintenance passed by the Family Court requires to be enhanced by taking into account the prevailing financial status of the parties. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondent-husband is working at HESCOM and as per Ex.P4-Salary certificate, it would indicate that the respondent is receiving gross salary of ₹37,978/- per month and therefore, sought for interference of this Court and to enhance the maintenance. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:512 RPFC No. 100126 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100180 of 2024 7. Per contra, Smt. P.S. Tadapatri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, has filed a memo along with certain documents to establish that petitioner No.1 is leading immoral life and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. She also submitted that, since the petitioner No.1 is leading immoral life, the order of the Family Court is required to be interfered with and as such sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioners. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as the marriage has been registered on 29.09.2011 and in their wedlock, the petitioner No.2 and 3 were born. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband emphasised on the fact that the petitioner No.1 is leading immoral life and has left the matrimonial home voluntarily. In this regard, the perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court as well as the learned counsel appearing for the parties would indicate that M.C.No.28/2023 was filed by the respondent-husband against petitioner No.1-wife seeking dissolution of marriage under the provisions of Section 13(1)(i) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and on careful - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:512 RPFC No. 100126 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100180 of 2024 examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court and the submissions of the parties, make it clear that the respondent-husband has made allegations against the petitioner No.1 for leading immoral life. The said aspect has been rejected by the Family Court and M.C.No.28/2023 is dismissed and same is not countered by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband that the appeal is preferred before this Court and same is pending consideration. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the respondent is working in HESCOM and drawing salary of ₹37,978/- per month as per Ex.P4 and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are residing at Gadag city, I am of the opinion that the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court to the petitioner No.1-wife is just and proper and no interference is called for in these petitions. However, it is also to be noted that taking into consideration the salary certificate at Ex.P4 is concerned, I am of the view that since the petitioner No.2 and 3 are minor aged about 7 and 9 years, respectively, the grant of maintenance is just and proper. Liberty is reserved to the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:512 RPFC No. 100126 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100180 of 2024 petitioner No.2 and 3 to file necessary application before the Family Court seeking modification of the grant of maintenance for enhancement under the changed circumstances. With this observation, RPFC No.100180/2024 is dismissed and RPFC No.100126/2024 is disposed of with aforementioned observation. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35