Dismissed¶36

Lingarajn S/O Balachandrappa Pilli v. Vidya W/O Lingarajj Pilli

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2025RPFC/100002/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad Bench; RPFC No. 100002 of 2024; Justice E.S. Indiresh; decided 05-03-2025; revision under Section 19 Family Court Act; challenge to Family Court Gadag maintenance order in Crl.Misc.No.101/2023 dated 15.12.2023; maintenance Rs.5,000 p.m. to wife, Rs.3,000 p.m. to minor daughter; husband's plastic business income Rs.10,000-15,000 p.m.; parties residing separately; M.C.No.19/2023 dissolution proceedings; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Family Court's maintenance order dated 15.12.2023 was left undisturbed and the revision petition was dismissed. ¶36

Lingarajn S/O Balachandrappa Pilli Vs Vidya W/O Lingarajj Pilli — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Family Court's maintenance order dated 15.12.2023 was left undisturbed and the revision petition was dismissed.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the maintenance order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag in Crl.Misc.No.101/2023 (Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor daughter) calls for interference by this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act.

¶18

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the Family Court and para No.12 of the maintenance petition, which states the petitioner is running a plastic business and getting Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, the Court opined that no interference is called for in the petition.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

It is forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that the petitioner herein filed M.C.No.19/2023, which makes it clear that the parties are residing separately.

¶30

Key takeaways

It is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner herein with respondent No.1 was held on 26.04.2019, respondent No.2 was born of the wedlock, and respondent No.2 is aged about 3 years.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision under Section 19 of the Family Court Act against maintenance order — The Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag, in Crl.Misc.No.101/2023 (order dated 15.12.2023) granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor daughter. The respondent-husband, as revisioner, contended through his counsel that he was always ready to take back the wife and child but she was not cooperating to reside at the matrimonial home. The Court noted the marriage (26.04.2019) and the minor child's age (about 3 years) were not in dispute; that the parties are residing separately, as evidenced by the petitioner having filed M.C.No.19/2023; and that, per para 12 of the maintenance petition, the petitioner runs a plastic business earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Considering the reasons assigned by the Family Court, the Court held no interference was called for and dismissed the petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4285 RPFC No. 100002 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100002 OF 2024 (-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

LINGARAJN S/O. BALACHANDRAPPA PILLI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. LAXMESHWAR, PETHBANA, TQ: LAXMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

VIDYA W/O. LINGARAJ PILLI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. LAXMESHWAR, NOW AT MULGUND, CHINDIPETI ONI, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG-582117.

¶11

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.07 16:18:41 +0530

¶12

POORNIMA D/O. LINGARAJ PILLI, AGE: 3 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. LAXMESHWAR, NOW AT MULGUND, CHINDIPETI ONI, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG-582117, (SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR, SHE IS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER VIDYA W/O. LINGARAJ PILLI, I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1) …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, GADAG IN CRL.MISC.NO.101/2023 DATED 15.12.2023 AND ETC.

¶13

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4285 RPFC No. 100002 of 2024

¶15

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the respondent –

¶18

husband in Crl.Misc.No.101/2023 challenging the order dated 15.12.2023 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag¹ .

¶19

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the marriage between petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 26.04.2019 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is stated in the petition that, the petitioner No.1 and the respondent have lead happy marital life for about two years and thereafter the respondent and his family members were abusing and assaulting petitioner No.1 to fetch additional dowry. In this regard, it is also stated that the respondent has filed M.C. No.19/2023 before the Senior Civil Judge, Laxmeshwar

¶21

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4285 RPFC No. 100002 of 2024

¶23

seeking dissolution of marriage. Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.101/2023 seeking maintenance.

¶24

After service of notice, the respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection contending that, the respondent has made several efforts to take back petitioner No.1, however, petitioner No.1 is adamant and not joining the respondent – husband and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 15.12.2023 granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has preferred this petition.

¶26

I have heard Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶27

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4285 RPFC No. 100002 of 2024

¶28

It is contended by the learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner that the respondent – husband was always ready to take back petitioner No.1 – wife with child, however, she is not co-operating for residing at matrimonial home and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶30

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the marriage of petitioner herein with respondent No.1 herein was held on 26.04.2019 and in their wedlock respondent No.2 herein is born and further respondent No.2 is aged about 3 years. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that the petitioner herein has filed M.C.No.19/2023 which makes it clear that the parties are residing separately.

¶31

In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the Family Court, and taking into consideration para No.12 of the petition, as it is stated that the petitioner herein is running plastic

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4285 RPFC No. 100002 of 2024

¶33

¶34

business and is getting Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, I am of the opinion that no interference is called

¶35

for in this petition.

¶36