- 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 (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT & SMT. PRIYANKA H. PAWAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 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) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 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 *27.02.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.*230/2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, *Belagavi (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 *Corrected Vide Chamber order dated 26.04.2025. Sd/- (ESIJ) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5697 RPFC No. 100198 of 2024 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.*230/2022 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. *Corrected Vide Chamber order dated 26.04.2025. Sd/- (ESIJ) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5697 RPFC No. 100198 of 2024 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5697 RPFC No. 100198 of 2024 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 *27.02.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.*230/2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, *Belagavi 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 1 AIR 2025 SC 644 *Corrected Vide Chamber order dated 26.04.2025. Sd/- (ESIJ) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5697 RPFC No. 100198 of 2024 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 List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8