Karnataka High Court
Sri.Vijayendra S/O Raghunath Inamadar vs Smt.Bharati W/O Vijayendra Inamadar on 6 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:48
RPFC No. 100115 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100115 OF 2019 (-)
BETWEEN:
SRI.VIJAYENDRA
S/O. RAGHUNATH INAMADAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: JADJI BHAVI
HOSAYALLAPUR,
TQ: DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SMT.BHARATI
signed by
MANJANNA W/O. VIJAYENDRA INAMADAR,
E AGE: 32 YEARS,
Location: OCC: NIL,
HIGH
COURT OF R/O: PLOT NO.231
KARNATAKA GHODAKE PLOT,
ANANDA NAGAR,
OLD HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. KUMARI MANASA
D/O. VIJAYENDRA INAMADAR,
AGE: 15 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: PLOT NO.231
GHODAKE PLOT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:48
RPFC No. 100115 of 2019
ANANDA NAGAR,
OLD HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
3. KUMARI MAHATI
D/O. VIJAYENDRA INAMADAR,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: PLOT NO.231
GHODAKE PLOT,
ANANDA NAGAR,
OLD HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
RESSPONDENT NO.2 TO 3 ARE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY M/G
NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1,
SMT.BHARATI W/O VIJAYENDRA INAMADAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT FOR R1;
R2 & R3 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)
-------
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI
IN CRL.MISC.NO.353/2014 DATED 29.08.2019 AND DISMISS THE
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:48
RPFC No. 100115 of 2019
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.353/2014 on the file of Principal Judge Family
Court, Hubballi (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Family
Court') challenging the order dated 29.08.2019 allowing the
claim petition in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family
Court that the petitioner No.1 has married the respondent
therein on 27.01.2005 at Krishnaswamy Kalyan Mantap,
Hubballi and in their wedlock two children were born i.e.,
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein). It is
the case of the petitioners that, the respondent is having house
and immovable properties at Dharwad and he is financially
sound. However, it is the case of the petitioners that, the
respondent is not taking care of petitioners therein except his
mother and sister and as such deprived the rights of the
petitioners including not providing food and clothes to the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:48
petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have filed Criminal
Miscellaneous No.353/2014 on the file of the Family Court.
4. After service of summons, the respondent entered
appearance and denied the averments made in the petition
except admitting the marriage with respondent No.1 herein.
5. It is the specific contention of respondent No.1 that,
the petitioner No.1 is intending to work at Beauty Parlour and
same was resisted by the petitioner herein and as such,
respondent No.1 denied the averments made in the petition
and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. The Family Court after recording the evidence of the
parties and taking into consideration the documents adduced
by the parties by order dated 29.08.2019, allowed the claim
petition in part by directing the respondent/petitioner herein to
pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1-wife and
Rs.2,000/- per month each to the children i.e., petitioner Nos.2
and 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.353/2014 has filed this revision
petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:48
7. Heard Sri. M. C. Hukkeri, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner. Notice issued to respondents is held
sufficient.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that the grant of maintenance in favour of
respondent No.1-wife is incorrect as the respondent No.1
herein herself left the matrimonial home without any cause and
that apart, the finding recorded by the Family Court is contrary
to the records and accordingly, sought for interference by this
Court.
9. The submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner which is not in dispute that the marriage of the
petitioner herein with respondent No.1 herein was solemnized
on 27.01.2005 and in their wedlock petitioner Nos.2 and
3/respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein were born to them.
10. On perusal of the finding recorded by the Family
Court would reveals that the parties are living separately and
further there is matrimonial dispute in M.C.No.312/2011 which
was disposed off on 04.06.2012. It is also be noted that, the
petitioner and respondents herein are residing separately.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:48
Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the
respondents herein are residing in Hubballi and the petitioner
herein is residing separately from the respondents herein and
also taking into consideration the finding recorded by the
Family Court at paragraph Nos.19 to 23 of the impugned order,
I am of the view that there is no error in the impugned order
passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, I am declined to
interfere with well reasoned judgment rendered by the Family
Court. Hence, revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
SMM
CT:ANB
