- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5899 RPFC No. 100030 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100030 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. GANGAYYA PUJAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. JADAGERI ONI, ANNIGERI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-582201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE) AND: GANGAYYA S/O. SHIDDAYYA PUJAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANGIWAL, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580024. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 09-02-2022, PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.62/2019, BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI AND GRANT A MONTHLY MAINTENANCE RS.10,000/- IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5899 RPFC No. 100030 of 2023 ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 09.02.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.62/2019 passed by the I-Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (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 petitioner that, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 04.08.1987. It is stated that on account of incompatibility between the parties, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home and residing separately. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent has extra marital relationship with one Girijavva and Manjula prior to the marriage and same has caused mental agony to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and is residing separately and therefore, she filed Crl.Misc.No.62/2019 seeking maintenance. 3.1. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections stating that the petitioner is not a dutiful wife to the respondent and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5899 RPFC No. 100030 of 2023 she resided with the respondent in matrimonial home only for 15 days. It is stated that the petitioner is adamant and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 3.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 09.02.2022 dismissed the petition. 4. I have heard Sri. Iranagouda K Kabbur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent though served with notice, has remained absent. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the finding recorded by the Family Court requires to be interfered with as the parties are residing separately and that apart, the Trial Court has not considered the factual aspects on record and accordingly, sought interference of this Court. 6. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully examined the impugned order passed by the Family Court. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 04.08.1987. It is also the finding recorded by the Family Court that the parties are - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5899 RPFC No. 100030 of 2023 residing separately. It is the allegation made by the petitioner- wife that the respondent-husband is having extra-marital affair with Girijavva and Manjula and accordingly, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Family Court requires to be interfered with. The Family Court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner wife is working as a coolie and earning for her livelihood and therefore, denied maintenance to the petitioner- wife. The said finding recorded by the Family Court is incorrect taking into consideration the scope and ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailja and Another v. Khobbanna1 and also in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs. State of Telangana and Another2. 7. Taking into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases, it is the duty of the Family Court to protect the destitute wife. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by 1 AIR 2017 SC 1174 2 (2025) 2 SCC 49 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5899 RPFC No. 100030 of 2023 the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 09.02.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.62/2019 passed by the I-Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases referred above. iii) On appearance of the parties, the Family Court is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest. 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 CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41