- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413 RPFC No. 100189 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100189 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI. RAJASHEKAR S/O. DANANJAYA BEVINMARAD, AGE. 53, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. BASAWESHWAR NAGAR, (SHAHAPUR PETH), NEAR SHANKARALING TEMPLE, GADAGA, DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DATTATRAYA TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LATA W/O. RAJASHEKAR BEVINMARAD, AGE. 45, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. EWS 738 FIRST CROSS, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. KUMAR. VISHWANATH S/O. RAJASHEKAR BEVINMARAD, AGE. 11, OCC. STUDENT, MINOR CHILD R/BY MOTHER SMT. LATA W/O. RAJASHEKAR BEVINMARAD, R/O. EWS 738 FIRST CROSS, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR R. AMBLI AND SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413 RPFC No. 100189 of 2023 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRL.MISC.NO.153/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, HUBLI AND ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2023 IN CRL MISC.NO.153/2019, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBLI, 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 This petition is filed by the respondent-husband challenging the order dated 21.07.2023 in Crl.Misc. No.153/2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubli (for short “the Family Court”) granting maintenance. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage of the petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent-husband was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413 RPFC No. 100189 of 2023 solemnised on 17.12.2012 at Hubli and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners have left the matrimonial home as the respondent-husband was not looking after the needs of the petitioners. It is also stated that the respondent-husband was residing along with his brother-Veeresh and the respondent-husband has totally neglected the petitioners. The respondent-husband along with his brother and family members were forcing the petitioner No.1-wife to bring additional dowry and having not tolerated the inhuman acts on the part of the respondent, the petitioners left the matrimonial home. Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.153/2019 before the Family Court seeking maintenance. 3.1. On service of notice, respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed objections stating that the petitioner No.1-wife is working and also drawing salary. It is stated that the petitioners have left the matrimonial home without any cause. The respondent-husband has denied the averments made in the claim petition with regard - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413 RPFC No. 100189 of 2023 to allegations made against the petitioners by him and his family members and sought for dismissal of the petition. 3.2. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 21.07.2023 allowed the petition in part holding that the petitioner No. 1 is entitled for ₹7,000/- per month and petitioner No.2 is entitled for ₹4,000/- per month from the respondent-husband. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 4. I have heard Sri. Dattatraya Timmanna Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein (respondent-husband) and Sri.S.S.Niranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein (petitioner-wife). 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband that the Family Court has neglected the medical certificate showing that the respondent-husband is suffering from major eye problem and he is also not working since 5 years. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413 RPFC No. 100189 of 2023 that the petitioner No.1-wife is working in an institution and drawing handful salary and hence, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1-wife sought to justify the impugned order. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the respondent-husband was working in Chennai as Project Engineer and thereafter returned from Chennai. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that the petitioner No.1-wife is also working in an institution; however the said employment is temporary. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner No.1-wife is residing separately along which her child at Hubli, and taking into account the escalation of price and also educational prospects of petitioner No.2, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413 RPFC No. 100189 of 2023 8. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3