- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829 RPFC No. 100183 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100183 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUJATA W/O. UMESH PADASALIMANI, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. MOHAN M.RATHOD, KEB VINAYAK NAGAR, HULYAL PLOT, NEAR BANNI MAHAKALI TEMPLE, BAGALKOT NOW RESIDING AT NANDAGOUDA HOUSE ROAD, VINAYAK NAGAR, BAGALKOT. 2. KUMAR RAJENDRA S/O. UMESH PADASALIMANI, AGE. 10 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O.C/O. MOHAN M.RATHOD KEB VINAYAK NAGAR, HULYAL PLOT, NEAR BANNI MAHAKALI TEMPLE, BAGALKOT, NOW RESIDING AT NANDAGOUDA HOUSE ROAD, VINAYAK NAGAR, BAGALKOT (SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER REVISION PETITIONER NO.1) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT AND SRI. ANAND L SANDRIMANI, ADVOCATES) AND: UMESH S/O. JAMPANNA PADASALIMANI, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER AT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829 RPFC No. 100183 of 2023 SOKANADAGI, TQ.DIST. BAGALKOT, R/O.UMESH S/O. JAMPANNA PADASALIMANI, R/O.SATISH SHINDHE, NEAR SHANTI HOSPITAL, BAGALKOT, TQ.DIST. BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHUBHENDU A. AKALWADI, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.178/2019 (OLD CRL.MISC.NO.300/2017) DATED 01.08.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL.JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BAGALKOT BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 01.08.2023 in Crl.Misc.178/2019 (Old Crl.Misc.No. 300/2017) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot (for short “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 petitioners that, the marriage of the petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent-husband was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829 RPFC No. 100183 of 2023 solemnized on 22.11.2010 at Neelanagar Tanda of Bagalkot and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. The parents of the petitioner No.1-wife had given dowry to the respondent- husband to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also stated that the respondent-husband was ill-treating the petitioner No.1-wife and was checking her mobile regularly having suspecting the petitioner No.1 and the respondent-husband was not taking care of the needs of the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.178/2019 seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband alleging that the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and living separately. 3.1. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objections to the claim petition denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended by the respondent-husband that the petitioner No.1 has kidnapped the petitioner No.2 from school and also stated that the petitioner No.1 is of adamant character. It is also stated that the respondent herein has filed MC.No.54/2017 seeking divorce and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829 RPFC No. 100183 of 2023 3.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 01.08.2023 dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are eking out the daily expenses incurred for their livelihood and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this petition. 4. I have heard Sri. Santosh B Rawoot, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Shubhendu A Akalwadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the finding recorded by the Family Court rejecting the maintenance petition placing reliance on the evidence of petitioner No.1, without considering the fact that the M.C.No.104/2019 filed by the respondent herein is dismissed and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. Shubhendu A Akalwadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the leaned counsel appearing for the parties, the relationship between the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829 RPFC No. 100183 of 2023 parties is not disputed. The petitioner No.1-wife married the respondent-husband on 22.11.2010 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is not in dispute that the parties are residing separately. The Family Court taking into consideration the deposition of petitioner No.1 in M.C.No.104/2019 dismissed the claim petition and the said finding recorded by the Family Court is contrary to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan1 and also in the case of Mohd.Abdul Samad v. State of Telangala and another2. It is also to be noted here that the maintenance will be given to the wife and children to protect them from destitution and therefore, taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, finding recorded by the Family Court requires to be set aside and it is a fit case to remand the matter for fresh consideration. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) Revision Petition is allowed. 1 (2015) 5 SCC 705 2 (2025) 2 SCC 49 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3829 RPFC No. 100183 of 2023 ii) Order dated 01.08.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.178/2019 (Old Crl.Misc.No.300/ 2017) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot, is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above. iii) It is made clear that the parties are directed appear before the Family Court on 26.03.2025 at 11.00 a.m. without waiting for further notice from the Family Court. iv) It is open for the parties to lead evidence, if so advised, in the circumstances of the case. v) The Family Court is directed to dispose of the petition at the earliest within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Family Court. vi) The respondent-husband is directed to comply with the interim order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court till the conclusion of the proceedings before the Family Court. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14