- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2817 RPFC No. 100041 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100041 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: SMT. VEENA W/O. PRAKASH HOSAMANI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEGALUR, TQ. HAVERI, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581111. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: PRAKASH S/O. PHAKIRAPPA HOSAMANI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. NWSKSRTC RANEBENNUR DEPOT, RANEBENNUR, DIST-HAVERI-581115. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.H.BAGI, ADVOCATE) ------ THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION FILED U/SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2021 IN CRL.MISC.NO.217/2020 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, HAVERI, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.15 12:15:34 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2817 RPFC No. 100041 of 2022 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.12.2021 passed in Clr.Misc.No.217 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Haveri, dismissing the petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned. 3. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Family court has arrived at a conclusion that, as the petitioners are residing at the maternal house of petitioner No.1 and as such, they do not require any maintenance. On perusal of finding recorded by Family Court, this court has expressed shock over the order passed by the Family Court, which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court as it is held that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2817 RPFC No. 100041 of 2022 Section 125 of Cr.P.C is a social measure to protect the women and children from destitution and vagrancy. The Family Court has not considered the scope and ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. This court never expected such reasoning by the learned Judge of the Family Court. Therefore, the Family Court has committed an error and has passed erroneous impugned order whimsically, without applying its mind and in a very casual manner. Therefore, this court finds it pain to express these aspects. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed. Order dated 13.12.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.217 of 2020 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Family court for fresh consideration. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12