Sri. Ravi S/O Basappa Alias Basavraj Talwar Alias Melinamani Vs Smt. Shruti W/O Ravi Talawar Alias Melinamani

SRI. RAVI S/O. BASAPPA ALIAS BASAVRAJ TALWAR ALIAS MELINAMANI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. TQ. VADAVADAGI, DIST. BIJAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. IMAMSAB HASAN, KUDAVAND, HOUSE NO. 44, GAYATRI COLONY, BENGERI, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD 580023. (BY SRI. V. P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

MANJANNA E

¶13

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.24 13:01:58 +0530

¶14

SMT. SHRUTI W/O RAVI TALAWAR ALIAS MELINAMANI AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

¶15

KUMARVIHAN S/O RAVI TALAWAR ALIAS MELINAMANI AGE. 4 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR AND IS REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN (MOTHER) AND BOTH ARE R/O. C/O VIJAYALAXMI W/O. NARAYAN DIVATE, NETAJI NAGAR, HAVERI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI 581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. F. R. GALAGANATH & SRI. C R HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1096 RPFC No. 100028 of 2024

¶17

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.11.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HAVERI IN CRIMINAL MISC. NO.58/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶22

parties.

¶23

This petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.58/2022, challenging the order dated 03.11.2023 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Haveri¹ , awarding maintenance to the

¶24

petitioners/respondents herein.

¶25

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1096 RPFC No. 100028 of 2024

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶28

referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.

¶29

It is the case of petitioner No.1 that marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent – husband was solemnized on 29.04.2017 at Jagadharadya Jayashantalingeshwar Mangal Bhavan Kalyana Mantapa, Near Shivanagiri, Ukkali Road, Bijapur and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that respondent was harassing the petitioners and as such she lodged complaint before the Women Police Station on 05.03.2019. It is also stated that the respondent and his father have abused petitioner No.1 resulting in lodging of complaint in Crime No.34/2019 at Haveri Women Police Station. It is also stated that the petitioners are not residing with the respondent and as such left the matrimonial home and hence the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.58/2022.

¶30

On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and contested the matter. The Family Court

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1096 RPFC No. 100028 of 2024

¶32

after considering the material on record, by order dated 03.11.2023 directed the respondent - husband to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. to petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/- p.m. to petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent – husband has preferred this petition.

¶33

I have heard Sri.V.P.Vadavi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.F.R.Galaganath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶34

Sri.V.P.Vadavi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – husband contended that the petitioner herein is not working and has underwent depression on account of family dispute and accordingly submitted that the impugned order passed by the Family Court requires to be interfered with in this petition.

¶35

Per contra, Sri.F.R.Galaganath learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1096 RPFC No. 100028 of 2024

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶38

parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between petitioner No.1 with respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2017 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that Crime No.34/2019 and Crl.Misc.No.215/2019 was filed by the respondents herein under the Domestic Violence Act and same is pending consideration before the competent Court. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, it is not in dispute that the parties are residing separately. In that view of the matter, as it is forthcoming at para No.30 of the impugned order that the petitioner herein is a BE (Computer Science) graduate and working in HCl Technologies Company at Bengaluru and therefore taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court at para Nos.31 and 33 of the impugned order, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this petition.

¶39