- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3316 RPFC No. 100152 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100152 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. CHANNAPPA TIPPANNAVAR, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O.HEBBALLI -580112 TQ. DIST. DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O. NINGAPPA TIPPANNAVAR, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O.HEBBALLI -580112 TQ. DIST. DHARWAD NOW RESIDING AT RAYANAL VILLAGE TQ. HUBBALLI-580030 DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRL. MISC. NO.236/2023 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2024 IN CRL. MISC. NO.236/2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE CRL. MISC. NO. 236/2023. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3316 RPFC No. 100152 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.236 of 2023 challenging the order dated 29.07.2024 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, granting maintenance to the petitioners therein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 15.04.2012 at Hebballi Village of Dharwad Taluk, and in their wedlock two children were born, namely, petitioner Nos.2 and 3. As the respondent-husband was not taking care of needs of the wife and children and as there is family rift between the parties, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and residing separately. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3316 RPFC No. 100152 of 2024 Hence, petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.236 of 2023, seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioners without any cause left the matrimonial home and further, the respondent has to take care of his aged parents and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 29.07.2024 allowed the petition in part and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.4,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of maintenance to the petitioners, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3316 RPFC No. 100152 of 2024 6. I have heard Sri. K.S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Gourishankar Mot, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Sri. K. S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents herein have left the matrimonial home without any cause despite the petitioner herein requested the respondents herein to join the company of the respondent. It is further contended that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is on the higher side. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Sri. Gourishankar Mot, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3316 RPFC No. 100152 of 2024 solemnized on 15.04.2012 and in their wedlock two children were born (petitioner Nos.2 and 3). Perusal of the finding recorded by Family Court makes it clear that, the parties are residing separately. It is also to be noted that, the respondents herein claiming maintenance as the petitioner herein has neglected them. Taking into consideration that, the petitioner herein is having agricultural land as per Ex.P7 to Ex.P12 (RTC Extracts), I am of the opinion that, maintenance awarded by the Family Court is just and proper and no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15