Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rutumbara W/O Gajanand Tallur vs Shri. Gajanand S/O Shankar Tallur on 27 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5697
RPFC No. 100198 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100198 OF 2024 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RUTUMBARA W/O. GAJANAND TALLUR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ARUN GUNDURAO BENAKE, PLOT NO.2282,
RAMTEERTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
2. KUMAR SANYAM S/O. GAJANAND TALLUR,
AGE: 04 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. ARUN GUNDURAO BENAKE, PLOT NO.2282,
RAMTEERTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
(PETITIONER NO.2 BEING MINOR,
IS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
PETITIONER NO.1)
...PETITIONERS
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT &
SMT. PRIYANKA H. PAWAR, ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
SHRI. GAJANAND S/O. SHANKAR TALLUR,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. GUMCHINMARDI, POST-PASCHAPUR,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI,
NOW RESIDING AT: RIDDHI SIDDHI,
GLUCOSE FACTORY, ELECTRICIAN, GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5697
RPFC No. 100198 of 2024
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT 1984 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC. NO:230/2022 BY
ALLOWING THE SAME AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the order
dated 23.07.2020 in Crl.Misc.No.296/2018 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short "the Family
Court") dismissing the petition insofar as petitioner No.1-wife is
concerned.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to
as per their rank before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage
between petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent-husband was
solemnised on 15.06.2017 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2
was born. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5697
and his family members were treating the petitioner No.1 as a
maid-servant and have not provided basic necessities to the
petitioners and as such, the petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial
home along with petitioner No.2 and started residing with her
parents. Hence, the petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.296/2018
before the Family Court seeking maintenance.
3.1. After service of notice, the respondent-husband
entered appearance and filed objection countering the
allegation made in the petition. It is the specific case of the
respondent that the petitioner No.1 has left the matrimonial
home without any cause and accordingly, sought for dismissal
of the petition.
3.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on
record, by its order dated 27.02.2024 dismissed the petition
insofar as petitioner No.1-wife, however granted maintenance
of ₹5,000/- to petitioner No.2-child. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, the petitioners have presented this petition.
4. I have heard Smt. Priyanka H Pawar, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondent though
served with notice has remained unrepresented.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5697
5. It is the contention of the petitioners that rejection
of claim made by the petitioner No.1 on the ground that
petitioner No.1-wife has refused to join the respondent-
husband despite the order in M.C.No.309/2019 by the Family
Court is incorrect and requires to be interfered with in this
petition.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and on careful
examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court it is
not in dispute that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and
the respondent was solemnised on 15.06.2017 and in their
wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. A perusal of the finding
recorded by the Family Court would indicate that
M.C.No.309/2019 was filed by the respondent-husband seeking
restitution of conjugal rights, which came to be allowed and
therefore, the Family Court taking into consideration that the
petitioner No.1 has not joined the matrimonial home, rejected
the claim made by the petitioner No.1 and the said finding of
the Family Court is incorrect taking into consideration the scope
of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. wherein it is a social measure to
protect the interest of a destitute wife. In that view of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5697
matter, taking into consideration the allegation made by the
petitioner No.1 in the claim petition, the Family Court ought not
to have dismissed the petition solely on the ground that the
petitioner No.1 has not obeyed the order in M.C.No.309/2019
and the said finding is contrary to judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @
Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato1.
It is a fit case to remand the matter to the Family Court for
fresh consideration. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition stands allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 23.07.2020 in
Crl.Misc.No.296/2018 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Ballari is hereby set aside
and the matter is remanded to the Family
Court for fresh consideration in the light of the
observation made above.
iii) It is also to be note here that it is open for the
parties to lead fresh evidence in the matter in
the circumstances of the case and the Family
AIR 2025 SC 644
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5697
Court, after considering the same, directed to
dispose of the same in accordance with law.
iv) In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and are disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
