Smt. Banadevi vs Sri. Iranna
2024 Latest Caselaw 271 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Banadevi vs Sri. Iranna on 4 January, 2024

                                             -1-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC-K:148
                                                     RPFC No. 200024 of 2018




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                    KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


                          REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200024 OF 2018
                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT. BANADEVI
                   W/O IRANNA @ IRAPPA ALLICHANDI,
                   BANADEVI D/O SHANKREPPA HEBBAL,
                   AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                   R/O R.S. KURLES HOUSE,
                   KHB COLONY, SOLAPUR ROAD,
                   VIJAYAPURA.

                                                                ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI. D P AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by SACHIN          SRI. IRANNA @ IRAPPA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           S/O NARAYANAPPA ALLICHANDI,
KARNATAKA
                   AGE: 34 YEARS,
                   OCC: SR. ACCOUNTS OFFICER, NAYINEGALLI,
                   R/O KAMATAGI, TQ: HUNGUNDI,
                   DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 120.

                                                              ...RESPONDENT

                   (BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

                        THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
                   FAMILY COURTS ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
                   AND ORDER DATED 22.12.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL.
                                     -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC-K:148
                                             RPFC No. 200024 of 2018




JUDGE,    FAMILY      COURT     AT    VIJAYAPUR    IN
CRL.MISC.NO.615/2016     and     to    ALLOW      THE
CRL.MISC.NO.615/2016 OF THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRL.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT VIJAYAPUR AS PRAYED FOR IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner in

Crl.Misc.No.615/2016 on the file of Principal Judge, Family

Court, Vijayapura, dismissing the claim petition filed by

the petitioner under Section 125 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this

petition is that the marriage between the petitioner and

the respondent was solemnized on 12.12.2013 at

Kamatagi Village and thereafter, it is alleged by the

petitioner that she has meted out physical and mental

agony by the respondent as well as his family member and

as such she has been forced to leave the matrimonial

home.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:148

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that, the

respondent is working as Senior Accounts Officer at EID

Pyarri Sugar Factory at Nayinegali and drawing

considerable salary. Hence, the petitioner has filed

Crl.Misc.615/2016 before the Family Court seeking

maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

5. On service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed objection stating that the

petitioner has undergone abortion without informing the

respondent and further the petitioner herself is withdrawn

from the matrimonial home and accordingly sought for

dismissal of the petition.

6. In order to establish their case, petitioner has

examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and produced

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

Ex.P.9. The respondent has examined three witnesses as

RW.1 to RW.3, however no documents were marked.

7. The Family Court after considering the material

on record by its order dated 22.12.2017 dismissed the

NC: 2024:KHC-K:148

claim petition and feeling aggrieved by the same,

petitioner has presented this petition.

8. I have heard the learned counsel

Sri D.P.Ambekar, appearing for the petitioner and

Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for

respondent.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contended that the petitioner has produced sufficient

material before the Family Court to establish that the

respondent herein has deserted her and further she has no

means to lead a life and the said aspect has not been

considered by the Family Court.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri Ravindra

Reddy appearing for the respondent sought to justify the

impugned order and argued that the petitioner herself has

withdrawn from the matrimonial home and therefore

sought for dismissal of the petition.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:148

11. In the light of the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful

examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court

would indicate that there is no dispute with regard to the

relationship between the parties and their marriage was

solemnized on 12.12.2013. It is also not in dispute that

the respondent is working and availing salary through his

employment as stated in paragraph No.9 of the Court

below.

12. On careful examination of the finding recorded

by the Family Court, wherein the Family Court has

erroneously come to the conclusion that the petitioner

herself left the matrimonial home. It is well settled

principle in law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of

decisions that the scope of Section 125 of Cr.P.C is to

meet the exigencies of the destitute wife. Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Seeta Bai1

had an occasion to consider the scope and ambit of

(2008) 2 SCC 316

NC: 2024:KHC-K:148

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Paragraph No.6 of the judgment

reads as under :-

"6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors.2 falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid

AIR 1978 SC 1807

NC: 2024:KHC-K:148

position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai

Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat ."

13. The said aspect was reiterated by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs.

Shahid Khan4.

14. In the light of the declaration made by the Apex

Court with regard to the interpretation of Section 125 of

Cr.P.C, I am of the view that the learned Family Judge

erred in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner herself

left matrimonial home and not entitled for maintenance.

The said finding recorded by the Family Court is contrary

to the declaration of law made by the Apex Court in the

aforementioned judgment and further it is the duty of the

Family Court to see the ingredients of Section 125 of

Cr.P.C are satisfied and if such being the case, the

petitioner-wife is entitled for maintenance. Accordingly,

the petitioner has made out a case for interference in this

(2005) 2 SC 503

(2015) 5 SCC 705

NC: 2024:KHC-K:148

petition and therefore, I am of the view that, it is a fit case

to remand the matter to the Family Court for

reconsideration in the light of the observation made

above.

15. In the result, I pass the following :

ORDER

i) Revision petition is allowed.

ii) The order dated 22.12.2017 in Crl.Misc.

No.615/2016 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration.

iii) In order to avoid further delay in the matter, as the parties are represented through their learned counsels, I am of the view that the parties shall appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Vijayapura on 29.01.2024.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN