- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5178 RPFC No. 100143 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100143 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: PRABHUSWAMI S/O. GADIGAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. D.G. HIREMATH BUILDING, KOTI ONI, KAMALAPUR, DHARWAD-581119. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHWETA W/O. PRABHUSWAMI HIREMATH, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. D.G. HIREMATH BUILDING, KOTI ONI, KAMALAPUR, DHARWAD. NOW- R/O. C/O. SIDDAYYA R. MUGADAYYANAMATH, H.NO.289/17, MANJUNATH NILAYA, OPPOSITE APMC, ISHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580024. 2. SHREESHAIL S/O. PRABHUSWAMI HIREMATH, AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. D.G. HIREMATH BUILDING, KOTI ONI, KAMALAPUR, DHARWAD. (PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1) SMT. SHWETA W/O. PRABHUSWAMI HIREMATH, NOW R/O. C/O. SIDDAYYA R. MUGADAYYANAMATH, H.NO.289/17, MANJUNATH NILAYA, OPPOSITE APMC, ISHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ K. MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (THROUGH VC)) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 PRAYING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT DHARWAD IN CRI.MISC. NO.48/2018 DATED 24.11.2020 BE SET ASIDE. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:37 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5178 RPFC No. 100143 of 2022 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by respondent in Crl.Misc.No.48/2018 challenging the Order dated 24.11.2020 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Dharwad, granting maintenance to the respondent No.2 herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred with reference to their rank before the Family Court, Dharwad. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 14.12.2008 and in their wedlock, a child was born (petitioner No.2). It is the allegation made by petitioner No.1 that, after the marriage, the respondent and his family members were pestering the petitioner No.1 to bring additional dowry and also in this regard petitioner No.1 had lodged a complaint with the police against the respondent and his family members. However, the same was closed at the instance of the elders in the family. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondent was not providing basic necessities to the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5178 RPFC No. 100143 of 2022 petitioners and therefore, petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.48/2018, seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objection denying the averments made in the petition. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its Order dated 24.11.2020, dismissed the petition in so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, however, awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent/husband has preferred this petition. 5. Heard Sri. Shrikant T. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Basavaraj K. Mathapati, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the respondent No.1 herein, has herself left the matrimonial home and therefore, award of maintenance to petitioner No.2 does not arise. 7. Per contra, Sri. Basavaraj K. Mathapati, learned counsel for the respondents herein sought to justify the impugned order. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5178 RPFC No. 100143 of 2022 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration that there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties, I am of the view that, as the parties are residing separately and also taking into consideration the age of petitioner No.2 was 7 years, and therefore, grant of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 is just and proper and it does not call for interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8