- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5181 RPFC No. 100058 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100058 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: PAVITRA W/O. NAGABHUSHAN D/O. MEGHARAJ, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. SIDDALINGESHWAR TEMPLE, KAPPAGAL VILLAGE-582103, TQ/DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: NAGABHUSHAN S/O. HONNURSWAMY, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PHOTOGRAPHER AT ’SRI. GURU PHOTO STUDIO’ CUM AGRICULTURIST CUM MONEY LENDER LIQUOR BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE, HANDIHAL VILLAGE-583117, TQ/DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA S. VAKKUND, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO ADMIT THE PETITION AND CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE PETITION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL. MISC.NO.76/2020 DATED 06.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BALLARI AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5181 RPFC No. 100058 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by petitioner challenging the Order dated 06.02.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.76/2020 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Ballari, dismissing the petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to with reference to their rank before the Family Court, Ballari. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 28.02.2008 and in their wedlock, two children were born. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent was taunting the petitioner that she is illiterate and she is from a village background and she was subjected to harassment by the respondent and his family members and therefore, petitioner left the matrimonial home and she is residing separately and she filed Crl.Misc.No.76/2020 before the Family Court, seeking maintenance from the respondent herein. 4. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objection, denying the averments - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5181 RPFC No. 100058 of 2023 made in the petition. It is the case of the respondent that children are in the custody of the respondent and he is providing proper education to children and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. The Family Court after considering the material on record, vide Order dated 06.02.2023, dismissed the petition and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner /wife has presented this revision petition. 5. I have heard Sri.C.S. Shettar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Soubhagya S. Vakkund, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Sri. C.S. Shettar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the finding recorded by the Family Court and contended that the sole ground on which the Family Court has dismissed the claim made by the wife is the pendency of case in G & WC No.6/2020 filed by the petitioner, before the Family Court. 7. Per contra, Smt. Soubhagya S. Vakkund, learned counsel for the respondent, sought to justify the impugned order. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5181 RPFC No. 100058 of 2023 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. 9. The petitioner herein has filed Crl. Misc. No. 76/2020 seeking maintenance on the ground that respondent has totally neglected the petitioner and he is also having illicit relationship with a lady. In that view of the matter the Family Court ought to have considered the scope and ambit of Section 125 Cr.P.C., where the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide relief to destitute wife and therefore, the finding recorded by the Family Court solely relying on the pendency of G&WC No.6/2020 is non est which requires to be set aside in this petition. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Family Court to consider the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAMIMA FAROOQUI VS. SHAHID KHAN reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 to award maintenance to the petitioner herein. Since the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is based on the principle of sustenance to the destitute petitioner/wife, this petition is liable to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5181 RPFC No. 100058 of 2023 ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 06.02.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.76/2020 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Ballari, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above. (iii) It is made clear that since parties are represented by their learned counsel herein, parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Ballari, on 25.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. without waiting for further notice. On their appearance, the Family Court, Ballari, is directed to dispose of the matter, in accordance with law, at the earliest. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11