- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:568 RPFC No. 100220 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100220 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI. ANEES AHMED S/O. NAZEER AHMED MORAB, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE R/O.C/O. MEHABOOBI ALIAS ZABEEN PATEL, R/H.NO.132, PATEL VILLA, HARLISAL, BHATKAL, U.K.PIN 581320 AND ALSO AT FLAT NO.2016, 2ND FLOOR, R.K.COMFORTS APARTMENTS, BEHIND SUNDAR HOSPITAL, 2ND CROSS HONNUR, MAIN ROAD, PLILANNA GARDEN CROSS, STREET, SAINT THOMOS TOWNS BENGALURU-5600884. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. NISHATHSULTANA SHEIKH W/O. ANEES AHMED MORAB D/O. ABDUL REHMAN SHEIKH, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O. A.M.SHIKH, SDP (RETD) R/O. CCB 4, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN, BELAGAVI DIST. BELAGAVI-5600884. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KAVITA S. JADHAV ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.20 11:01:00 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:568 RPFC No. 100220 of 2023 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING THAT THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.200/2019, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 08.09.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.200/2019 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), awarding maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife from the respondent-husband. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that marriage between the petitioner and respondent was held during December 2008 at Belagavi. It is stated by the petitioner that she is graduate in Master of Business Administration and her father was a retired police officer. It is stated in the petition that, the petitioner was neglected by the respondent to provide - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:568 RPFC No. 100220 of 2023 basic necessities and also the family of the respondent were pressurized the petitioner to get dowry as demanded during the marriage and she also stated that the marriage with the respondent was not consummated and the respondent is suppressed his inability to procreate the child, and accordingly, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home and residing in her parental house and as such the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.200/2019 seeking maintenance from the respondent. 5. The respondent entered appearance by filing statement of objection and stated that the petitioner-wife herself was adamant and went to her matrimonial home at Belagavi voluntarily. It is also stated in the statement of objection that the petitioner-wife is MBA graduate and was working earlier to the marriage and has left the job. Accordingly, the respondent sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The Family Court based on evidence on record by its order dated 08.09.2023, allowed the claim petition in part and granted maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent- husband has preferred this petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:568 RPFC No. 100220 of 2023 7. Heard Sri. J. S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Kavita S. Jadhav learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Anil L. Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent-wife is MBA graduate and she is capable of earning on her own and the said aspect has not been considered by her family. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Family Court without any basis, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner- husband is working in a Film Industry for more than 20 years and accordingly, arrived at a conclusion to direct the petitioner- husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/- which is without any basis and on higher side and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court and submitted that the petitioner herein is in Film Industry for more than 20 years and also having immovable property at Bhatkal and therefore, taking into consideration the monthly income of the petitioner herein is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:568 RPFC No. 100220 of 2023 concerned, award of Rs.40,000/- per month is just and proper and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petitioner. 10. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. It is also forthcoming from the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that O.S.No.60/2017 was filed by the respondent herein seeking dissolution of the marriage and the said suit came to be decreed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2023 dissolving the marriage between the parties. In the backdrop of these aspects, on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that though the petitioner herein was working in promotion of films, however, same was denied by him. However, taking into consideration the finding recorded at paragraph No.23 of the impugned order, I am of the view that, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is without any basis of granting maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month. Taking into account the status of the petitioner herein wherein, no document has been produced before the Family Court, to substantiate that the petitioner herein is having - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:568 RPFC No. 100220 of 2023 monthly income to pay the maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the respondent herein. In that view of the matter, in the absence of the acceptable documents, the Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month which requires to be interference in this petition. However, it does not disentitle to the respondent herein to get the maintenance from the petitioner herein. Taking into note of factual aspects on record and also the status of the respondent-wife wherein she is residing at Belagavi city, maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month is just and proper. 11. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Award of maintenance of Rs.40,000/- is reduced to Rs.25,000/- per month to be payable by the petitioner herein to the respondent-wife for livelihood of respondent herein from the date of petition before the Family Court. 12. Amount in deposit by the petitioner herein to be paid to the respondent herein upon due identification. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM/CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34