- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2107 RPFC No. 100216 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100216 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. FAYYAZ AHMED SHAIKH S/O. NAZIR AHMED SHAIKH AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. PLOT NO.532, SECTOR NO.1000/2, 2ND CROSS, VEERABHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016. ..PETITIONER (BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. BIBI AYISHA W/O. FAYYAZ AHMED SHAIKH AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR BILAL MASJID, TIPPU NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580024. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.M. SHIROLLI AND SMT. ALPHIA SHIROLLI, ADVOCATES) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.09.2022 V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.05 15:16:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2107 RPFC No. 100216 of 2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, JUDGE FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.110/2021 AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR ADJUDICATION AND DIRECTING TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE MATTER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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 petition is filed by respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.110/2021, challenging the order dated 03.09.2022 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’) granting maintenance to the respondent herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.05.2017 at Hubballi. It is also stated that both the petitioner and the respondent were divorcee. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent was not taking care of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2107 RPFC No. 100216 of 2022 needs of the petitioner and as such she left the matrimonial home and residing with her parents. Hence, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.110/2021 seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections denying the averments made in the petition. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 03.09.2022 allowed the petition in part and directed the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the respondent herein. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 5. I have heard Sri. Avinash Banakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. M. Shirolli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Sri. Aviniash Banakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner herein is working as a driver in Taxi Agency and therefore, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is to be interfered with in this petition. 7. Per contra, Sri. K. M. Shirolli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that pursuant to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2107 RPFC No. 100216 of 2022 impugned order passed by the Family Court the petitioner herein contracted with two more marriages and therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is to be confirmed. 8. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of finding recorded by the Family Court, particularly with regard to paragraph Nos.37 to 44 makes it clear that the petitioner herein has neglected the respondent herein and also perusal of Ex.P6 and P7 makes it clear that the petitioner herein is having two cars and also the petitioner herein is a proprietor of Chola Insurance Express Company, and in that view of the matter, grant of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper which does not call for interference in this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30