- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5766 RPFC No. 100013 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100013 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. CHAITRA W/O. KOTESH HARIJAN AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. MAHADEVAPPA, S/O. GANGAPPA TALAGERI, KOLUR, TQ. DIST: HAVERI-581112. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G.DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. KOTESH S/O. NEELAPPA HARIJAN AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOLLESHWAR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.M.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND CALL FOR RECORDS OF COURT BELOW AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HAVERI, IN CRIMINAL MISC NO.09/2024 IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC 125(1) OF CR.P.C. BY TH REV.PETITIONER AND THEREBY ALLOW CRL. MISC.NO.09/2024 BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY REV.PETITION MAINTENANCE OF RS. 15,000/- PER MONTH IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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:5766 RPFC No. 100013 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.9 of 2022 challenging the order dated 25.10.2024 on the file Principal Judge, Family Court, Haveri dismissing the petition, filed for seeking maintenance. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that marriage between the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 27.03.2020 at Hangal Taluk. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent was suspecting the character of the petitioner and further she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the respondent and as such, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home and residing separately. Hence, the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.9 of 2024, seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5766 RPFC No. 100013 of 2025 4. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It is the grievance of the respondent that the petitioner has led the marital life for six months only and thereafter, she left the matrimonial home without any cause. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 25.10.2024 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that, the petitioner is earning Rs.200/- per day as a coolie and therefore, she is not entitled for the maintenance. Feeling aggrieved by the petitioner has presented this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. It is contended by Sri. Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the reasons assigned by the Family Court requires to be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5766 RPFC No. 100013 of 2025 interfered with as the impugned order is perse contrary to the object of 125 of Cr.P.C. 8. Per contra, Sri. B.M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not dispute that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 27.03.2020 at Hanagal Taluk. It is also not in dispute that the parties are residing separately. On careful examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court in dismissing the petition is perse contrary to the scope and ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. This court strongly displeasure over the learned Judge about the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner- wife is earning Rs.200/- per day as a coolie and that itself is sufficient for her maintenance. Taking into consideration the well established principle by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5766 RPFC No. 100013 of 2025 reported (2021) 2 SCC 324 and in the case of Abhilasha vs. Parkash and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 4355, wherein it is held that, the purpose of providing immediate relief under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is to protect the wife/applicant from destitution. It is also well established principle in law that, even if the wife is working, however, it is the obligation on the part of the respondent-husband to maintain the wife, taking into consideration the status of the parties. It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353, wherein, it is held that the award of maintenance to the wife is for sustenance and in the event, if such an application is dismissed on technical ground or not considering the scope of ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C and same would cause miscarriage of justice to the petitioner-wife. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348 has held that, the provision for providing maintenance under Section 125 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5766 RPFC No. 100013 of 2025 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice, extended to protect the woman and child and the object is to prevent destitution and flagrancy. Therefore, I am of the view that, the learned Judge, in the impugned order, has ignored the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court referred to above and has erroneously dismissed the petition stating that, the petitioner-wife is working as a Coolie and earning Rs.200/- per month, however, has not considered the reason as to why the wife-petitioner is working as a collie is only because of respondent-husband, who has neglected the wife-petitioner. Hence, this petition requires to be allowed as it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Revision Petition is allowed; ii) Order dated 25.10.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.9 of 2024 the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Haveri is set aside and matter is remanded to the Family - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5766 RPFC No. 100013 of 2025 Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above. iii) Since the parties are represented by their learned counsel and in order to avoid further delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 28.04.2025, without waiting for the further notice in this regard. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20