- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3311 RPFC No. 100225 of 2023 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. 100225 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: HASANSAB S/O. LATEEFSAB KUNDI, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. MAIN MESTRI AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR I B, HOSARITTI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. FATIMA W/O. HASANSAB KUNDI AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HOSARITTI, (MAILARALINGAPPA TEMPLE), TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581110. 2. FAYAZ S/O. HASANSAB KUNDI, AGE ABOUT 6 YEARS, OCC. NIL, (R/BY NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND CALL FOR RECORDS OF COURT BELOW AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT HAVERI IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO. 110/2022. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISISON THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3311 RPFC No. 100225 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent assailing the order dated 24.07.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.110/2022 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Haveri (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the petitioners therein. 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 No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 23.07.2012 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is the allegation of the petitioner No.1 that, after the marriage, the respondent and his family members were harassing the petitioner to get additional dowry and also assaulted the petitioner No.1 and as such, the petitioner No.1 along with the child left the matrimonial home. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner No.1 lodged complaint before the Guttal Police Station and the proceedings in C.C. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3311 RPFC No. 100225 of 2023 No.408/2013 is pending consideration before the Competent Court. Hence, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.110/2022 seeking maintenance as the petitioners have been neglected by the respondent-husband. 4. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance alleging that the petitioner No.1 is having illicit relationship with one Imamsab Rajesab Meglur and also stated that he has to take care of his aged parents. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 24.07.2023 granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri.Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that, the Family Court has committed an error in awarding exorbitant maintenance despite the petitioner herein is a daily wager and having no source of income. It is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3311 RPFC No. 100225 of 2023 also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the respondent No.1 is not a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and disputes the paternity of the child. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order. 9. In the light of submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 23.07.2012 in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that criminal cases have been launched by the petitioner No.1-wife against the respondent-husband and therefore, it may be concluded that the parties are residing separately. 10. Taking into account the fact that, the petitioner No.1 has to take care of minor child and therefore, the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3311 RPFC No. 100225 of 2023 11. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7