Karnataka High Court
Shri. Rajashekar S/O. Dananjaya ... vs Smt. Lata W/O. Rajashekar Bevinmarad on 19 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413
RPFC No. 100189 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100189 OF 2023 (-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. RAJASHEKAR
S/O. DANANJAYA BEVINMARAD,
AGE. 53,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. BASAWESHWAR NAGAR,
(SHAHAPUR PETH),
NEAR SHANKARALING TEMPLE,
GADAGA, DIST. GADAG.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DATTATRAYA TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LATA W/O. RAJASHEKAR BEVINMARAD,
AGE. 45, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
Digitally
signed by R/O. EWS 738 FIRST CROSS,
VN NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025,
BADIGER
Location: DIST. DHARWAD.
High
Court of
Karnataka, 2. KUMAR. VISHWANATH
Dharwad S/O. RAJASHEKAR BEVINMARAD,
Bench
AGE. 11, OCC. STUDENT,
MINOR CHILD R/BY MOTHER
SMT. LATA W/O. RAJASHEKAR BEVINMARAD,
R/O. EWS 738 FIRST CROSS,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025,
DIST. DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR R. AMBLI AND SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN,
ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413
RPFC No. 100189 of 2023
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
CRL.MISC.NO.153/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, HUBLI AND ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2023 IN CRL
MISC.NO.153/2019, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, HUBLI, IN THE INTEREST 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
This petition is filed by the respondent-husband
challenging the order dated 21.07.2023 in Crl.Misc.
No.153/2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Hubli (for short "the Family Court") granting maintenance.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred
to as per their rank before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage
of the petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent-husband was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413
solemnised on 17.12.2012 at Hubli and in their wedlock
petitioner No.2 is born. It is stated in the petition that the
petitioners have left the matrimonial home as the
respondent-husband was not looking after the needs of the
petitioners. It is also stated that the respondent-husband
was residing along with his brother-Veeresh and the
respondent-husband has totally neglected the petitioners.
The respondent-husband along with his brother and family
members were forcing the petitioner No.1-wife to bring
additional dowry and having not tolerated the inhuman acts
on the part of the respondent, the petitioners left the
matrimonial home. Hence, the petitioners have filed
Crl.Misc.No.153/2019 before the Family Court seeking
maintenance.
3.1. On service of notice, respondent-husband
entered appearance and filed detailed objections stating that
the petitioner No.1-wife is working and also drawing salary.
It is stated that the petitioners have left the matrimonial
home without any cause. The respondent-husband has
denied the averments made in the claim petition with regard
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413
to allegations made against the petitioners by him and his
family members and sought for dismissal of the petition.
3.2. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its order dated 21.07.2023 allowed the petition in
part holding that the petitioner No. 1 is entitled for ₹7,000/-
per month and petitioner No.2 is entitled for ₹4,000/- per
month from the respondent-husband. Feeling aggrieved by
the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this
petition.
4. I have heard Sri. Dattatraya Timmanna Hebbar,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein
(respondent-husband) and Sri.S.S.Niranjan, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent herein (petitioner-wife).
5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-husband that the Family Court has
neglected the medical certificate showing that the
respondent-husband is suffering from major eye problem
and he is also not working since 5 years. It is submitted by
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413
that the petitioner No.1-wife is working in an institution and
drawing handful salary and hence, sought for interference of
this Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner No.1-wife sought to justify the impugned order.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful
examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court
would indicate that the respondent-husband was working in
Chennai as Project Engineer and thereafter returned from
Chennai. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by
the Family Court that the petitioner No.1-wife is also working
in an institution; however the said employment is temporary.
In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact
that the petitioner No.1-wife is residing separately along
which her child at Hubli, and taking into account the
escalation of price and also educational prospects of
petitioner No.2, I find no reason to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, the
petition stands dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3413
8. In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:ANB
