- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4672 RPFC No. 100218 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100218 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. SURENDRA BABU S/O. NAGESHWAR RAO G., AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O. C-1, SAIVILLA TOWERS, RAGHAVENDRA NURSARY ROAD, TADAPALLI, TAL AND DISTRICT: GUNDUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-522501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KISHOR SUDHAKAR SUTAR & SMT. VAIBHAVI INAMDAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. B. KALYANI W/O. G. SURENDRA BABU, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SAI BALAJI APARTMENT, E-1, 1ST FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, BALLARI-583103. 2. MASTER. DEVAN SRISAI S/O. G. SURENDRA BABU, AGE: 13 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, SMT. B. KALYANI W/O. G. SURENDRA BABU, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SAI BALAJI APARTMENT, E-1, 1ST FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, BALLARI-583103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY AND SMT. RESHMA MADIVALAR, ADVOCATES) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.44/2021 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4672 RPFC No. 100218 of 2024 FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, UNDER SECTION 125 OF CRPC GRANTING MAINTENANCE TO THE RESPONDENTS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband assailing the order dated 19.11.2024 in Crl. Misc.No.44/2021 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Ballari, granting maintenance to the petitioners therein. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court, Ballari. 3. It is the case of the petitioner/wife that marriage between petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 18.01.2010 and from their wedlock, a child was born i.e. petitioner No.2. It is the case of the petitioner/wife that respondent was working as a software engineer in England and immediately after the marriage, the respondent went to England. It is also stated that, at the time of leaving India during April, 2011, the petitioner No.1 was conceived with a child and was residing with her brother and she returned to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4672 RPFC No. 100218 of 2024 India alone. It is also the case of the petitioners that, the respondent was not looking after the needs of the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.44/2021 seeking maintenance. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and denied the allegations made against the respondent – husband. 4. It is the case of the respondent/husband that the entire marriage expenses was incurred by the family of the respondent and also it is stated that as the respondent was periodically giving amount to the respondents herein to lead life, hence, respondent sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court, considering the material on record, by its order dated 19.11.2024, allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent/husband to pay Rs.7,500/- per month for petitioner No.1 and Rs.15,000/- per month for petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent/husband has filed this petition. 6. Heard Sri. Kishor Sudhakar Sutar, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and Smt. Reshma Madiwalar, learned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4672 RPFC No. 100218 of 2024 counsel for the respondent No.1/wife. Respondent No.2 being minor is represented by the first respondent. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, that petitioner herein has left England and now residing in India and he is unemployed graduate. It is also stated that though the respondent has produced the statement of account of the petitioner as per Ex.R28, the Family Court has not properly appreciated the material on record, and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, Smt. Reshma Madiwalar, learned counsel for the respondent/wife, sought to justify the impugned order. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that she left the matrimonial home and residing separately. 10. Taking into account that petitioner herein was working in England as a Software Engineer and petitioner also returned from England and that he has taken loan from financial Corporations and taking into consideration the finding recorded - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4672 RPFC No. 100218 of 2024 by the Family Court at para 23 and 25, I am of the view that the award of maintenance by Family Court is just and proper as the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, as per the finding recorded in Crl.Misc.No.44/2021, are residing separately at Ballari City. Therefore, no interference is called for in this petition. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31