- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:378 RPFC NO.100160 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REV. PET. FAMILY COURT NO.100160 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHRI. SHIVASHANKAR S/O BASAVENNEPPA ANNIGERI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER IN T.M.A.E.S. B.ED COLLEGE, IJARY LAKMANPUR, HAVERI – 581 110. NOW RESIDING AT: NEAR NEW HANAMANT TEMPLE, SHETAGAR CHAWL, BAILHONGAL, BAILHONGAL TALUK, BELAGAVI - 591 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. UMA W/O SHIVASHANKAR ANNIGERI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. NIL. NOW R/O PLOT NO. 3604, RAMTEERTH NAGAR, KANABARGI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 590 001. 2. KUMARI. ARSHITA D/O SHIVASHANKAR ANNIGERI AGE: 11 YEARS OCC.: NIL, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.10 16:41:19 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:378 RPFC NO.100160 OF 2024 NOW R/O PLOT NO.3604, RAMTEERTH NAGAR, KANABARGI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 590 001. (RESPONDENT NO.2 BEING MINOR, IS REP. BY HER MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19TH JULY, 2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.54 OF 2016, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION IN-PART IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.54 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), challenging the order dated 19th July, 2024, wherein, the petition filed by the respondents herein came to be allowed in-part and directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1- wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2-daughter. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:378 RPFC NO.100160 OF 2024 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 26th June, 2011 at Veerabhadreshwara Temple, Bailhongal and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. It is stated in the petition that the respondent-husband was harassing the petitioner No.1-wife and even after the birth of the petitioner No.2 the respondent- husband and his family members have not come forward to see the baby girl born to them, though the petitioner No.1-wife and her parents requested them to come and see the child in the parental house. It is also alleged that the respondent-husband was pestering the petitioner No.1 to bring dowry on several occasions and as such, petitioners left matrimonial home, having not tolerated the mental agony caused in the matrimonial home and accordingly, filed petition before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:378 RPFC NO.100160 OF 2024 4. On service of the notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections. It is the specific contention of the respondent-husband that the petitioner No.1-wife was adamant and not willing to stay at the matrimonial home and that apart, she is having close affinity to make the respondent-husband to reside in her parental house, which caused rift in the family. Hence, the respondent has sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner-wife herself examined as PW1. On the other hand, respondent examined himself as RW1 and got marked the 3 documents as Exhibits R1 to R3. 6. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 19th July, 2024, allowed the petition in-part and directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2-daughter. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband presented this revision petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:378 RPFC NO.100160 OF 2024 7. Heard Sri. Santosh S. Hattikatagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband and Sri. Santosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 8. Sri. Santosh S. Hattikatagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband contended that the Family Court fails to asses the evidence on record in the right perspective. He further contended that petitioner-husband has no means to pay the maintenance as granted by the Family Court. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, Sri. Santosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel appearing for respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. 10. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the respondent No.1-wife with the petitioner herein was performed on 26th June, 2011 and in their wedlock respondent No.2 herein was born. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that there is a rift in the family with regard to taking care of the respondents by the petitioner- husband. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:378 RPFC NO.100160 OF 2024 the Family Court at paragraph 13 that the petitioner herein is working as Principal in Prerana English Medium School, Tenikolla Cross, Bailhongal and drawing salary. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the respondents herein are residing at Belagavi City, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this petition. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41