Sri. Chandrashekar S/O Mariyappa Chulki Vs Smt. Madhura W/O Chandrashekar Chulaki

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5233 RPFC No. 100043 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100043 OF 2023 (-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. MARIYAPPA CHULKI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SUPERVISOR, R/O. T.S. PUMPS AND VALUES PVT. LIMITED, B-490, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. ANJANEYA M., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT. MADHURA W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR CHULAKI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR VASIHNAVI DEVI TEMPLE, ESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025.

¶11

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.22 15:55:10 +0530

¶12

KUMARI HRITHIKA D/O.CHANDRASHEKAR CHULKI, AGE: 07 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NEAR VASIHNAVI DEVI TEMPLE, ESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GURADIAN MOTHER

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.11.2022 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO.359/2021 BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5233 RPFC No. 100043 of 2023

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.359/2021, challenging the order dated 09.11.2022 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), granting maintenance to the petitioners therein.

¶20

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

¶21

It is the case of the petitioners that, the

¶22

marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 06.05.2015 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent and his family members were inhumanly treating the petitioners and as such the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and residing separately. Hence, the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.359/2021 seeking maintenance.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5233 RPFC No. 100043 of 2023

¶24

After service of notice, the respondent-husband

¶25

entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection. It is the specific contention of the respondenthusband that, the petitioner No.1 was adamant and has left the matrimonial home without cause and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 09.11.2022 granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has preferred this petition.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the Family Court has failed to consider the fact that, the respondent No.1 herein is working and she is eking out her livelihood and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.

¶28

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5233 RPFC No. 100043 of 2023

¶31

Court. It is not in dispute that, the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent – husband was solemnized on 06.05.2015 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born.

¶32

Taking into account the fact that, the petitioners are residing separately and as the respondenthusband is working as Supervisor at T.S. Pumps and Valves Pvt. Ltd., at Industrial Estate, Hubballi and as per the salary certificate produced at Ex.R5, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the Family Court is just and proper.

¶33

In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶35

SMM CT-MCK

¶36

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri. Chandrashekar S/O Mariyappa Chulki v. Smt. Madhura W/O Chandrashekar Chulaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrashekar S/O Mariyappa Chulki v. Smt. Madhura W/O Chandrashekar Chulaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chidanandappa S/O Tippanna Jogi Vs Smt. Kanakamma W/O Chidanandappa Maddi Alias Madder

Smt R Vijalakshmi W/O. R. Sudarshan Reddy Vs Sri S Mohammed Aslam Sab S/O Sargeru Abdul Nabi Sab

Smt Pooja W/O Vishwanath Mahajan Vs Smt Vishwanath S/O Basalingappa Mahajan

Nikita W/O Varun Gongadi Vs Varun S/O Mahadevappa Gongadi

Sri. Gurulingayya S/O Mahadevayya Vastrad Vs Smt. Akshata W/O Gurulingayya Vastrad

Mohammed Ali, S/O Ismail Khan Mujawar Vs Mohammed Ismail S/O Khaiyamkhan Mujavar