Smt. Sujata W/O Umesh Padasalimani vs Umesh S/O Jampanna Padasalimani
2025 Latest Caselaw 4426 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Sujata W/O Umesh Padasalimani vs Umesh S/O Jampanna Padasalimani on 25 February, 2025

                                         -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829
                                               RPFC No. 100183 of 2023




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                  DHARWAD BENCH
                    DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                                      BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                    REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100183 OF 2023 (-)
             BETWEEN:

             1.   SMT. SUJATA
                  W/O. UMESH PADASALIMANI,
                  AGE. 31 YEARS,
                  OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                  R/O. C/O. MOHAN M.RATHOD,
                  KEB VINAYAK NAGAR,
                  HULYAL PLOT,
                  NEAR BANNI MAHAKALI TEMPLE,
                  BAGALKOT
                  NOW RESIDING AT NANDAGOUDA HOUSE ROAD,
                  VINAYAK NAGAR, BAGALKOT.

             2.   KUMAR RAJENDRA
                  S/O. UMESH PADASALIMANI,
                  AGE. 10 YEARS,
                  OCC. STUDENT,
                  R/O.C/O. MOHAN M.RATHOD
Digitally         KEB VINAYAK NAGAR,
signed by
VN                HULYAL PLOT,
BADIGER           NEAR BANNI MAHAKALI TEMPLE, BAGALKOT,
Location:         NOW RESIDING AT NANDAGOUDA HOUSE ROAD,
High
Court of          VINAYAK NAGAR, BAGALKOT
Karnataka,
Dharwad           (SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER
Bench
                  REVISION PETITIONER NO.1)
                                                           ...PETITIONERS

             (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT AND SRI. ANAND L SANDRIMANI,
             ADVOCATES)

             AND:

             UMESH S/O. JAMPANNA PADASALIMANI,
             AGE. 39 YEARS,
             OCC. TEACHER AT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
                                     -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829
                                          RPFC No. 100183 of 2023




SOKANADAGI,
TQ.DIST. BAGALKOT,
R/O.UMESH S/O. JAMPANNA PADASALIMANI,
R/O.SATISH SHINDHE,
NEAR SHANTI HOSPITAL,
BAGALKOT, TQ.DIST. BAGALKOT.
                                                        ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SHUBHENDU A. AKALWADI, ADVOCATE)

        THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.178/2019         (OLD    CRL.MISC.NO.300/2017)    DATED
01.08.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL.JUDGE FAMILY COURT,
BAGALKOT BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION, 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

This petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the order

dated 01.08.2023 in Crl.Misc.178/2019 (Old Crl.Misc.No.

300/2017) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bagalkot (for short "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 of

the petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent-husband was

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829

solemnized on 22.11.2010 at Neelanagar Tanda of Bagalkot

and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. The parents of

the petitioner No.1-wife had given dowry to the respondent-

husband to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also stated that the

respondent-husband was ill-treating the petitioner No.1-wife

and was checking her mobile regularly having suspecting the

petitioner No.1 and the respondent-husband was not taking

care of the needs of the petitioners and accordingly, the

petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.178/2019 seeking

maintenance from the respondent-husband alleging that the

petitioners have left the matrimonial home and living

separately.

3.1. After service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed objections to the claim petition

denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is

contended by the respondent-husband that the petitioner No.1

has kidnapped the petitioner No.2 from school and also stated

that the petitioner No.1 is of adamant character. It is also

stated that the respondent herein has filed MC.No.54/2017

seeking divorce and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829

3.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on

record, by its order dated 01.08.2023 dismissed the petition on

the ground that the petitioners are eking out the daily expenses

incurred for their livelihood and accordingly, dismissed the

petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have

filed this petition.

4. I have heard Sri. Santosh B Rawoot, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Shubhendu A

Akalwadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners that the finding recorded by the Family Court

rejecting the maintenance petition placing reliance on the

evidence of petitioner No.1, without considering the fact that

the M.C.No.104/2019 filed by the respondent herein is

dismissed and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.

6. Per contra, Sri. Shubhendu A Akalwadi, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the

impugned order.

7. In the light of the submissions made by the leaned

counsel appearing for the parties, the relationship between the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829

parties is not disputed. The petitioner No.1-wife married the

respondent-husband on 22.11.2010 and in their wedlock

petitioner No.2 is born. It is not in dispute that the parties are

residing separately. The Family Court taking into consideration

the deposition of petitioner No.1 in M.C.No.104/2019 dismissed

the claim petition and the said finding recorded by the Family

Court is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan1 and also in

the case of Mohd.Abdul Samad v. State of Telangala and

another2. It is also to be noted here that the maintenance will

be given to the wife and children to protect them from

destitution and therefore, taking into consideration the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above,

finding recorded by the Family Court requires to be set aside

and it is a fit case to remand the matter for fresh consideration.

In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Revision Petition is allowed.

    (2015) 5 SCC 705

    (2025) 2 SCC 49

                                                       NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829





         ii)    Order        dated              01.08.2023            in
                Crl.Misc.No.178/2019       (Old    Crl.Misc.No.300/

2017) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot, is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above.

iii) It is made clear that the parties are directed appear before the Family Court on 26.03.2025 at 11.00 a.m. without waiting for further notice from the Family Court.

iv) It is open for the parties to lead evidence, if so advised, in the circumstances of the case.

v) The Family Court is directed to dispose of the petition at the earliest within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Family Court.

vi) The respondent-husband is directed to comply with the interim order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court till the conclusion of the proceedings before the Family Court.

Sd/-

(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

YAN CT:ANB