- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5186 RPFC No. 100074 of 2024 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. 100074 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SMT. RATNA @ NAGARATHNA W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAJYOTHSAVA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, RUPANAGUDI ROAD, BALLARI, TALUK: BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI-583102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K.B. SHIVALINGAPPA, S/O. K. BISETTI HONNURAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COMMISSION AGENT, AT APMC YARD, BALLARI, R/O. W.NO.8, NEAR MAREMMA TEMPLE, ANDRAL, BALLARI, TALUK: BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI-583102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.276/2021, BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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:5186 RPFC No. 100074 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 03.03.2023 in Crl. Misc.276/2021 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari, dismissing the petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred 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 11.05.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was subjected to ill-treatment and humiliation by the respondent and his family members and also it is stated that, the respondent has suppressed the fact that the respondent married the petitioner after the death of his first wife and therefore, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home being unable to tolerate the inhuman treatment meted out to her. Hence, the petitioner filed Crl. Misc.276/2021, seeking maintenance from the respondent. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5186 RPFC No. 100074 of 2024 4. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the allegation made in the claim petition. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is having extra marital relationship with one Manju, S/o Shankri and therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its Order dated 03.03.2023, dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/wife has presented this petition. 5. Heard Sri. Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.S. Sangati, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Sri. Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the finding recorded by the Family Court denying maintenance to the petitioner is based on the erroneous assumption of law which requires to be interfered with in this petition. 7. Per contra, Sri. B.S. Sangati, learned counsel for the respondent, sought to justify the impugned order and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5186 RPFC No. 100074 of 2024 submitted that the petitioner herein is having extra marital relationship with one Manju and therefore, the petitioner herein is not entitled for maintenance from the respondent. 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. It is not in dispute that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 11.05.2014. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that parties are residing separately. The Family Court, taking into consideration that the petitioner herein is having tailoring job, has accordingly dismissed the petition, despite the allegation made by the respondent that the petitioner herein is having extra marital relationship with one Manju. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the Family Court is incorrect in denying maintenance to the destitute wife. It is well settled principle in law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATHY Vs. BIDYUT PRAVA DIXIT AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348, wherein the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a summary - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5186 RPFC No. 100074 of 2024 proceeding and same does not determine the rights of the parties. Therefore, the Family Court has committed an error in dismissing the petition solely on the ground that the petitioner herein is having the knowledge of tailoring. In that view of the matter, the Family Court has committed an error in not understanding the settled principle of law with regard to scope and ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., wherein the provision has been made for awarding maintenance to destitute wife. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 03.03.2023 in Crl. Misc.276/2021 on the file of Principal 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, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5186 RPFC No. 100074 of 2024 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 on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20