IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REV. PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100099 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SHRI MANOHAR @ PRASHANT S/O. ISHWAR TALWAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.23, ADARSH COLONY, VISHWESHWARAYYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590019.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. VEENA SRIKANT HEGDE, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

SMT. ANITA W/O. MANOHAR @ PRASHANT TALWAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. PLOT NO.593, BLOCK NO.4, SECTOR NO.5, SHREE NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

…RESPONDENT Digitally signed by (BY SRI SHREEVATSA HEGDE AND MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH SRI ABHILASH HANAMANNAVAR, ADVOCATES.)

Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.151/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI AND DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 125 CR.P.C, AND ALTERNATIVELY, MODIFY THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT AND/OR DIRECT PAYMENT FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER INSTEAD OF THE DATE OF PETITION AND ETC.

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

Though the Revision Petition is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This Revision Petition is filed by the husband questioning the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. No.151/2018 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi¹, thereby, the Family Court has allowed the petition Crl. Misc.No.151/2018 in part by assessing maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month payable by the respondent (petitioner herein) to his wife from the date of filing of the petition.

3. It is not disputed that the revision petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife respectively, as their marriage was solemnized on 19.04.2017 at Belagavi. It is the allegation of the respondent/wife that she was

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’ for short

subjected to harassment by her parents-in-law and the revision petitioner. It is her further allegation that the revision petitioner has deserted and neglected the respondent/wife; therefore, she was constrained to live in her parental home, and lodged a complaint against parents- in-law and revision petitioner/husband. Hence, the respondent/wife filed petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’, seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month.

4. The said petition is vehemently refuted by the revision petitioner/husband. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, has granted maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of filing of the petition.

5. Questioning the same, the revision petitioner/husband filed this present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband submitted that he is not having any regular income, and moreover, the respondent/wife is working and receiving salary. Further, the revision petitioner/husband and his parents have not subjected the respondent/wife to harassment, but the respondent/wife had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home; hence, the revision petitioner/husband is not liable to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife. Also, submitted that the revision petitioner/husband is not having any regular income and therefore, prays to make interference with the order passed by the Family Court.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife justified the order passed by the Family Court.

8. Considering the materials placed on record, it is not disputed that the revision petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife, as their marriage was solemnized on

19.04.2017 at Belagavi. Hence, it is proved that the respondent is wife of the revision petitioner. When this being the fact, it is bou