- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5234 RPFC No. 100177 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100177 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. MALAPPA KARIGAR @ MALU, S/O. HALAPPA @ HALAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SHEPHERD & AGRICULTURIST, R/O. JATRAT VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHEEMA @ SEEMA W/O. MALAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HALE NELLUDI-VILLAGE, KURUGODU TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583116. 2. SRI. NAVALAPPA S/O. RAMANAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST & SHEPHERD, R/O. JATRAT VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237. …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BALLARI IN CRL.MISC. NO.150/2019 DATED 14.09.2023 AND DIRECTED TO PAY THE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.5000/- Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.22 15:55:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5234 RPFC No. 100177 of 2023 PER MONTH TO THE RESPONDENT FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND BESIDES A SUM OF RS.5000/- TOWARDS THE COST OF THE PRESENT LITIGATION, IN THE ABOVE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.150/2019, challenging the order dated 14.09.2023 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court at Ballari (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the respondent No.1 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 with the respondent was solemnized on 27.03.2011 and in their wedlock two children were born. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent-husband and his family members were ill- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5234 RPFC No. 100177 of 2023 treating the petitioner-wife and also pressurizing the petitioner to get additional dowry and as such, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home. Hence, the petitioner-wife has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.150/2019 seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection. It is the specific contention of the respondent- husband that, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home without cause and that apart, the petitioner – wife was not taking care of the family members of the respondent accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 14.09.2023 granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 herein. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the respondent No.1 herein has left the matrimonial home long back and residing with the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5234 RPFC No. 100177 of 2023 respondent No.2 herein and therefore, the respondent No.1-wife is not entitled for maintenance. It is also stated that, two children born in their wedlock and they are in custody of petitioner herein and the dissolution of marriage is already made. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. It is not in dispute that, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent – husband was solemnized on 27.03.2011 and in their wedlock two children were born. 8. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that, the parties are residing separately in view of the order passed in MC No.163/2022. The respondent – husband has failed to establish that the petitioner – wife is residing with the respondent No.2 herein. In that view of the matter, I do not find any - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5234 RPFC No. 100177 of 2023 illegality in the order passed by the family Court, accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2