- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1717 RPFC No. 100201 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100201 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI. SANJU S/O. MAHADEVAPPA VATNAL, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HIREKUMBI VILLAGE, TALUK -SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. DEEPA ALAIS YASHODA W/O. SANJU VATNAL, NOW CALLED AS DEEPA D/O. BHIMAPPA KONENAVVAR , AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DEVARGUDIHAL, TALUK. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD PIN CODE – 580024. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L.S. SULLAD, ADVOCATE) ------ THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, PRAYING TO ORDER DATED 08.06.2021 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.301/2019, BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.01 11:43:07 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1717 RPFC No. 100201 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.301 of 2019 challenging the order dated 08.06.2021 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, awarding maintenance to the petitioner before the Family Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to their status and ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 13.05.2017 and thereafter, the petitioner was residing in the matrimonial home. It is also stated that, no child was born in their wedlock. It is also stated that, the respondent has neglected the petitioner and was not looking after the petitioner and further, not providing medical treatment to the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1717 RPFC No. 100201 of 2022 petitioner, when it is required and therefore, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home. Hence, petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.301 of 2019. 4. The respondent was served and remained absent and placed ex-parte before the Family court. The Family court after considering the material on record by order dated 08.06.2021 allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. I have heard Sri. Gururaj R. Turamari and Sri. L.S. Sullad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Sri. Gururaj R. Turamari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order impugned is an ex-parte order and factual aspects are - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1717 RPFC No. 100201 of 2022 not being considered by the Family court and accordingly, sought for interference of this court. 7. Per contra, Sri. L.S. Sullad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to relation between the parties as the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized don 13.05.2017 and they have no issues. It is also not in dispute that, the petitioner-husband herein has filed MC No.11 of 2018, seeking restitution of conjugal rights which came to be allowed on 02.08.2018, however, the said order is an ex-parte order. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court that, the petitioner herein was served and remained absent, the reasons for absence are not justifiable in nature and it appears that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1717 RPFC No. 100201 of 2022 petitioner-husband deliberately avoided the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.301 of 2019. 9. Taking into consideration the petitioner-wife is residing at Devargudihal at Hubbali Taluk and the needs of the respondent-wife is concerned, award of maintenance Rs.5,000/- per month is just and proper and does not call for interference in this petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17