Karnataka High Court
Smt Rashmi W/O Raju G vs Sri Raju.G S/O Gundanna on 14 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3104
RPFC No. 100114 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100114 OF 2022 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RASHMI W/O. RAJU .G,
BEFORE MARRIAGE RASHMI
D/O. KRISHNA BANDEKAR,
AGE. 35 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.KRISHNA BANDEKAR
PLOT NO.5, ASHOK APARTMENT,
11TH CROSS, SAPTAPUR,
DHARWAD
TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
2. KUMAR SHLOK
S/O. RAJU .G
AGE. 2 YEARS 4 MONTHS,
(PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR SINCE
REPRESENTED BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN
NEXT NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1)
Digitally
signed by V ...PETITIONERS
N BADIGER
(BY SRI. S. N BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka, AND:
Dharwad
Bench SRI. RAJU.G S/O. GUNDANNA
AGE.46 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR,
R/O. KITTLE ARTS COLLEGE,
DHARWAD-580008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.G. BHAT AND SRI. S.M. KATAGI, ADVOCATES)
-------
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3104
RPFC No. 100114 of 2022
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO WHEREFORE THE PETITIONER MOST
HUMBLY PRAY THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD IN CRIMINAL MISC.
NO. 110/2019 DATED 16.04.2022 THEREBY DISMISSING THE
MAINTENANCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CRL.P.C.
MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND IN TURN CRL. MISC.NO.110/2019
MAY BE ALLOWED BY GRANTING MAINTENANCE TO THE
PETITIONERS AS PRAYED THEREIN AND AWARDING COSTS AND
LITIGATION EXPENSES TO THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the order
dated 16.04.2022 in Crl.Misc.No110/2019 on the file of the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad (for short the "Family
Court") dismissing the petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage
between the petitioner No.1-wife and the respondent-husband
was solemnized on 05.07.2017 at Dharwad and in their
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3104
wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. It is further stated in the
petition that the respondent-husband was not taking care of
the needs of the petitioners and the respondent-husband was
antagonized with the birth of the child and as such, the parties
are residing separately. It is also forthcoming that the
petitioner-wife has also lodged a complaint against the
respondent-husband, however, no further action was taken
against the respondent-husband as the elders of the family
interfered and advised the parties to stay together. Thereafter
also, there no change in the attitude of the respondent
resulted on account of physical and mental torture made by the
respondent on her and his family members, hence, the
petitioners left the matrimonial home.
3.1. On service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance and filed detailed objections.
3.2. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, dismissed the petition on the ground that the
petitioner-wife has voluntarily deserted the house of the
respondent-husband. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners herein have filed this petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3104
4. I have heard the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that, the dismissal of the claim petition by the
Family Court on the ground that the petitioners have voluntarily
deserted the respondent, which is erroneous and liable to be
set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
husband sought to justify the impugned order.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
marriage between the petitioner No.1-wife and the respondent-
husband was solemnized on 05.07.2017 and in their wedlock
petitioner No.2 was born. The finding recorded by the Family
Court would indicate that the parties are residing separately. It
is also forthcoming from the pleadings made by the petitioners
herein that the petitioner No.1 is residing with her parents and
in that view of the matter, taking into account the fact that the
petitioner No.1 is not having any source of income and is
separated by the respondent-husband, the Family Court has
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3104
committed an error in dismissing the petition on the ground
that the petitioners have left the matrimonial home voluntarily.
It is to be noted that in the event if the Family Court has
arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner No.1-wife has left the
matrimonial home, however the reason for leaving the
matrimonial home has to be considered in the light of the
pleadings of the parties, before rejecting the claim petition
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, I find
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners herein. It is a fit case to remand
the matter to the Family Court for fresh adjudication in the light
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajnesh v. Neha and another1 and in the case of Bhuwan
Mohan Singh v. Meena & Others2. In that view of the
matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 16.04.2022 in
Crl.Misc.No.110/2019 passed by the Principal
(2021) 2 SCC 324
(2015) 6 SCC 353
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3104
Judge, Family Court, Dharwad is set aside
and the matter is remanded for fresh
consideration by the Family Court.
iii) In the light of the observation made above, in
order to avoid further delay in the matter, the
parties are directed to appear before the
Family Court on 17.03.2025.
iv) On their appearance, the Family Court is
directed to dispose of the petition at the
earliest.
v) In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and are disposed off
accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:ANB
