Karnataka High Court
Mahanand W/O Shivakumar Melinamani vs Shivkumar S/O Yamanappa Melinamani on 17 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170
RPFC No. 100168 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100168 OF 2023 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHANAND
W/O. SHIVAKUMAR MELINAMANI,
AGE. 44 YEARS,
OCC. COOLIE.
2. LAXMIPATHI
S/O. SHIVAKUMAR MELINAMANI,
AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT.
3. SANTOSHKUMAR
S/O. SHIVAKUMAR MELINAMANI,
AGE. 16 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
PETITIONER NO.3 IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL
Digitally GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E.,
signed by PETITIONER NO.1
VN ALL ARE R/O. BINDARGI ONI,
BADIGER
OLD - HUBBALLI,
Location: HUBBALLI 580024.
High
Court of
Karnataka, ...PETITIONERS
Dharwad (BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)
Bench
AND:
SHIVKUMAR
S/O. YAMANAPPA MELINAMANI,
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. HEAD CONSTABLE,
KASABAPETE POLICE STATION,
OLD - HUBBALLI, DIST. HUBBALLI 582204.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI AND SRI. PRASHURAM C.
SAJJANAR, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170
RPFC No. 100168 of 2023
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2023
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT HUBBALLI IN
CRIMINAL MISC.NO.406/2012 BY ALLOWING THE PETITION AS
PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners assailing
the order dated 17.03.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.406/2012 on
the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi1
dismissing the petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the
marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was
solemnized on 22.04.1994 and in their wedlock two
children were born namely petitioners No.2 and 3. It is the
case of the petitioners that the respondent is working as
Head Constable in Kasabapete Police Station and he has
Hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170
neglected the petitioners and also it is stated that the
respondent has contracted with the 3rd marriage and
accordingly the petitioners have left the matrimonial
home. It is also stated that the petitioners are residing
separately and accordingly sought for maintenance in
Crl.Misc.No.406/2012.
4. After service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance and filed detailed objection and stated that
petitioner No.1 is not his wife and in order to extract
money from the respondent, the petitioners have filed
false petition claiming maintenance and accordingly sought
for dismissal of the petition.
5. Having considered the material on record, the
Family Court by its order dated 17.03.2023 dismissed the
petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
have presented this petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170
6. I have heard Sri.Subhash J Baddi, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Vishwanath S
Bichagatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contended that the Family Court has committed an error in
arriving at a conclusion to deny the maintenance to the
petitioners despite the petitioners proving the marriage
between petitioner No.1 and respondent. It is also
contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners by referring to Ex.P.31 which reads as
"¥ÀAZÀ¥ÀwßAiÀÄgÀ ªÀÄĢݣÀ ¥Éưøï, eÁw-zsÀªÀÄð §zÀ°¹ LªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¥ÉÃzÉ" and submitted that these aspects
have been ignored by the Family Court and accordingly
sought for interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent sought to justify the impugned order.
9. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170
examination of the impugned order would makes it clear
as per para No.18 of the impugned order that, this Court
in RPFC No.100054/2015 by its order dated 04.03.2015
set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to
the Family Court for fresh consideration holding that the
parties in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., need
not prove the legality of marriage.
10. This Court has specifically considered the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and
Another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348, and stated that
in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, the rights of
the parties cannot be looked into and accordingly directed
the Family Court to dispose of the same. Despite the
same, the Family Court having taken note of the
observations made by this Court, however, erroneously
and without application of mind passed the impugned
order stating that the petitioners have not proved the
marriage with respondent. In that view of the matter, this
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170
Court finds fault with the learned Judge. Despite this Court
has directed the learned Judge to dispose of the petition in
accordance with the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, however, on the
very same ground, learned Family Court Judge arrived at a
conclusion, and such observation made by the learned
Judge is to be deprecated despite the order passed by this
Court, which is per se amounts to contempt of court in a
judicial proceeding. Accordingly, I find force in the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and as such the matter is remanded to the
Family Court to dispose of the petition at the earliest.
11. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed.
b) Order dated 17.03.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.406/2012
on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170
hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to
the Family Court for fresh consideration.
c) In order to avoid further delay in the matter,
parties are directed to appear before the Family
Court on 18.03.2025.
d) The learned Additional Registrar General of this
Court is requested to send a copy of this order to
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, where
the Presiding Officer is working to dictate that the
Trial Judge to abide by the orders passed by this
Court, being a Appellate Court.
e) Copy of the order be made known to the
Administrative Judge of the learned Family Court
Judge.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SH
CT:ANB
