ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-wife challenging the order dated 09.12.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.225/ 2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhrawad (for short “the Family Court”) dismissing the petition.

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

4. The relevant facts for adjudication of this revision petition are that, the marriage of the petitioner-wife with respondent-husband was solemnized on 30.05.2015 at Vijaypura and in their wedlock no children were born. It is the case of the petitioner-wife before the Family Court that the petitioner herein was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and the respondent-husband and his family members were harassing the petitioner by demanding dowry and as such, she left the matrimonial home. Hence, the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.225/2019.

4.1. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed objections denying the averments made in the petition. It is the specific case of the respondent-husband that the petitioner-wife herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause and the respondent- husband has made all efforts by sending the elders for conciliation to bring back the petitioner-wife however, the same were went in vain. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed M.C.No.242/2019 (Old M.C.No.177/2018) seeking dissolution of marriage and accordingly, now sought for dismissal of the maintenance petition.

4.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 09.12.2021 dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner-wife herself has withdrawn from the conjugal life. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has filed this petition.

5. I have heard Sri. G.N.Narasammanavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. I.C.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that the petitioner has left the matrimonial home at the instance of the respondent as he has not taken care of the needs of the petitioner and therefore, the finding recorded by the Family Court requires to be interfered with.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause and many efforts have been made by the respondent-husband to get her back. However, the petitioner herein is adamant and not willing to continue her conjugal rights. In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder, [(2003) 11 SCC 303] and Haunsabai v. Balkrishna Krishna Badiger, [ILR 1980 KAR 612] and argued that as the petitioner herein has left the matrimonial home voluntarily, she is not entitled for maintenance from the respondent-husband.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 30.05.2015 and on account of rift in the family, the parties were separated. It is also not in dispute that the respondent herein has filed M.C.No.242/2019 (Old M.C.No.177/2018) seeking dissolution of marriage. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the parties are residing separately. The Family Court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner herein has left the matrimonial home voluntarily. However, on careful examination of the petition averments makes it clear that the petitioner has given a reason as to why she has left the matrimonial home as there was frequent demand for dowry by the respondent- husband. In that view of the matter, the petitioner herein alleged certain allegation against the respondent-husband for not continuing herself in the matrimonial home. Therefore,