- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2961 RPFC No. 100223 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100223 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: SMT. SHIVALEELA W/O. GIRISH SAJJAN, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. PLOT NO.193, B.H.NO.1, BEHIND OZONE HOTEL, OM NAGAR NARAYANA SHETTY LAYOUT, DHARWAD-580001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: GIRISH S/O. SHIVASHARANAPPA SAJJAN AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SHRI. DESHPANDE COLONY, BEHIND KAMAL HOTEL, SHIVAKRUPA NILAYA, VIJAYAPUR-586101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. I.C. PATIL AND SRI. B.R. PATIL,) THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DTD 09.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD IN CRL. MISC.NO.225/2019. AND GRANT AN AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE OF THIS PETITIONER/WIFE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.17 11:52:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2961 RPFC No. 100223 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-wife challenging the order dated 09.12.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.225/ 2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhrawad (for short “the Family Court”) dismissing the petition. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 4. The relevant facts for adjudication of this revision petition are that, the marriage of the petitioner-wife with respondent-husband was solemnized on 30.05.2015 at Vijaypura and in their wedlock no children were born. It is the case of the petitioner-wife before the Family Court that the petitioner herein was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and the respondent-husband and his family members were harassing the petitioner by demanding dowry and as such, she left the matrimonial home. Hence, the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.225/2019. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2961 RPFC No. 100223 of 2022 4.1. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed objections denying the averments made in the petition. It is the specific case of the respondent-husband that the petitioner-wife herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause and the respondent- husband has made all efforts by sending the elders for conciliation to bring back the petitioner-wife however, the same were went in vain. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed M.C.No.242/2019 (Old M.C.No.177/2018) seeking dissolution of marriage and accordingly, now sought for dismissal of the maintenance petition. 4.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 09.12.2021 dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner-wife herself has withdrawn from the conjugal life. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has filed this petition. 5. I have heard Sri. G.N.Narasammanavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. I.C.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2961 RPFC No. 100223 of 2022 6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that the petitioner has left the matrimonial home at the instance of the respondent as he has not taken care of the needs of the petitioner and therefore, the finding recorded by the Family Court requires to be interfered with. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause and many efforts have been made by the respondent-husband to get her back. However, the petitioner herein is adamant and not willing to continue her conjugal rights. In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder1 and Haunsabai v. Balkrishna Krishna Badiger2 and argued that as the petitioner herein has left the matrimonial home voluntarily, she is not entitled for maintenance from the respondent-husband. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the 1 (2003) 11 SCC 303 2 ILR 1980 KAR 612 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2961 RPFC No. 100223 of 2022 petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 30.05.2015 and on account of rift in the family, the parties were separated. It is also not in dispute that the respondent herein has filed M.C.No.242/2019 (Old M.C.No.177/2018) seeking dissolution of marriage. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the parties are residing separately. The Family Court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner herein has left the matrimonial home voluntarily. However, on careful examination of the petition averments makes it clear that the petitioner has given a reason as to why she has left the matrimonial home as there was frequent demand for dowry by the respondent- husband. In that view of the matter, the petitioner herein alleged certain allegation against the respondent-husband for not continuing herself in the matrimonial home. Therefore, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent-husband cannot be accepted as the factual aspects on record is on different footings. 9. Taking into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and another3 as 3 AIR 1999 SC 3348 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2961 RPFC No. 100223 of 2022 well as in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena and others4 the maintenance of wife is for her sustenance. ‘Sustenance’ does not mean animal existence but signifies leading life in similar manner as she would have lived in house of her husband. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, it is a duty of the husband to take care of his wife and therefore, the said aspect of the matter was not considered by the Family Court in right perspective. The matter requires reconsideration. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 09.12.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.225/ 2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhrawad is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration in the light of the judgment referred to above. iii) It is made clear that since the parties are represented through their respective counsels and in order to avoid further delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear 4 (2015) 6 SCC 353 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2961 RPFC No. 100223 of 2022 before the Family Court on 12.03.2025 at 11.00 am. On their appearance, the Family Court is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest. iv) It is made clear that liberty is reserved to the parties to lead further evidence, if any, in the matter, if so advised. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15