Mahananda W/O Shivakumar ... vs Shivakuamar S/O Yuemanappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7774 Kant

                            -1-




                                     RPFC No. 100054 of 2015




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY, 2022

                          BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
       REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100054 OF 2015

BETWEEN:


1.   MAHANANDA W/O SHIVAKUMAR MELIMANI
     36 YEARS, OCC: COOLI
     NOW R/O KRISHNAPURA ONI,
     2ND CROSS, OLD HUBBALLI,
     HUBBALLI-580029

2.   LAXMIPATHI S/O SHIVAKUAMR MELIMANI
     16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
     NOW, R/O KRISHNAPURA ONI
     2ND CROSS, OLD HUBBALLI
     HUBBALLI-580029

3.   SANTOSHKUMAR S/O SHIVAKUAMR MELIMANI
     AGE:7 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT
     NOW R/O KRISHNAPURA ONI
     2ND CROSS, OLD HUBBALLI
     HUBBALLI-580029

     THE 2ND and 3RD REVISION PERTIIONERS ARE MINORS,
     R/B 1ST PETITIONER MATHER AND THE NATURAL
     GUARDIAN.



                                              ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H R GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.   SHIVAKUAMAR S/O YEMANAPPA MELINAMANI
     51 YEARS, OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE
     T.C. NO.1191
                                -2-




                                           RPFC No. 100054 of 2015



     NOW WORKING AT EAST TRAFFIC POLICE STATION
     KESHWAPUR,
     HUBBALLI-580029



                                                      ...RESPONDENT
(SMT. P.S.TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
      THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT,
1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:04.03.2015,
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.406/20125, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBLI, DECREEING THE PETITION FILED
U/S.125 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
     THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:



                           ORDER

Though this petition is listed for orders, with the

consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners in Crl.

Misc. No.406/2012 on the file of the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Hubballi, challenging the order dated

04.03.2015 dismissing the petition filed under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this Revision

Petition are that, it is the case of the petitioners that

RPFC No. 100054 of 2015

the petitioner No.1 has married the respondent on

22.04.1994 at Shree Dharmasthala

Manjunatheshwara Temple, Dharmasthala, and in

their wedlock, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were born. It is

further stated that there is a family dispute between

the petitioners and the respondents herein and

thereby it is stated in the claim petition that the

respondent has failed to provide basic necessity to

the petitioners and has willfully neglected the

petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners herein

have filed Crl. Misc. No.406/2012 on the file of the

Family Court, seeking maintenance.

4. On service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed objection, denying the

relationship between himself and the petitioner No.1.

In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 was

examined as P.W.1 and she has produced 34

documents and the same were marked as Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.34. The respondent was examined as R.W.1 and

RPFC No. 100054 of 2015

he has produced 12 documents and the same were

marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.12. The Family Court, after

considering the material on record, by order dated

04.03.2015, dismissed the claim petition filed under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the

same, the petitioners have presented this writ

petition.

5. Heard Sri. H.R.Gundappa, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners and Smt. P.S.Tadapatri, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. Sri. H.R.Gundappa, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners contended that, the finding recorded by

the Family Court disputing the relationship between

the petitioner No.1 and the respondent is outside the

scope and ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and

therefore, he contended that, the reasons assigned

by the learned Family Court requires to be interfered

with in this petition. He further contended that, the

respondent has married the petitioner No.1 on

RPFC No. 100054 of 2015

22.04.1994 and in order to prove the relationship

between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent, the

petitioners herein have produced as many as 34

documents before the Family Court and the same

were not considered by the Family Court, while

appreciating the material on record. Accordingly, he

sought for interference in this petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel Smt. P.S.Tadapatri,

representing the respondent sought to justify the

impugned order passed by the Family Court. She

contended that, the petitioner No.1 is a stranger and

not related to the respondent and the documents

produced by the petitioners herein are concocted and

the same cannot be the basis to arrive at a

conclusion that the petitioner No.1 has married the

respondent, and accordingly she sought for dismissal

of the petition.

9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully

RPFC No. 100054 of 2015

considered the material on record and the impugned

order passed by the Family Court. Perusal of the

finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate

that, as per Ex.P.1, the respondent herein has

married the petitioner No.1 on 22.04.1994 and it is

further stated in the petition that the petitioner Nos.2

and 3 are born in their wedlock. In this regard,

though learned counsel appearing for the respondent

contends that the documents produced by the

petitioners before the Family Court are concocted and

the petitioner No.1 has played fraud against the

respondent herein to claim unjust claim from the

respondent herein, however, on perusal of the

documents referred to at Ex.P.1, i.e. the marriage

Invitation and other documents would prima-facie

make it clear that the petitioner No.1 and the

respondents are living together.

11. It is well established principle of law that, as per law

declared by the Apex Court in the case of Dwarika

RPFC No. 100054 of 2015

Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and

another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348, that the

proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is a

summary proceedings and does not determine the

rights of the parties. It is also a trite law that the

provision under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure

of social justice extended to protect the women and

the children. Therefore, the speedy remedy has to be

provided to the deserted women and in that view of

the matter, following the law declared by the Apex

Court, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by

the Family Court, particularly at paragraph No.37 to

39, is incorrect and the Family Court has not

considered the scope and ambit of awarding

maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and

therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners herein

have made out a case for remanding the matter to

the Family Court for fresh consideration. It is also

made clear that, the Family Court shall not be

RPFC No. 100054 of 2015

influenced by the observations made by this Court in

this petition.

10. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(a) The Revision Petition is allowed;

(b) Order dated 04.03.2015 in Crl. Misc.

No.406/2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court for fresh consideration;

(c) The Family Court is directed to dispose of the petition at the earliest within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of this order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties;

(c) In order to avoid further delay in the matter and as the parties to lis are represented before this Court, the parties are relegated to appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court,

RPFC No. 100054 of 2015

Hubballi, on 27.06.2022, without awaiting notice from the Family Court;

(d) Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH