- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:377 RPFC NO.100080 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REV. PET. FAMILY COURT NO.100080 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHANKARAGOUDA @ SHANKARALINGEGOUDA S/O NINGANAGOUDA HURALI @ HURALIGOUDRA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC.: DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR, TOKEN NO.948, R/O DEEPANJALINAGAR, B.M.T.C. DEPOT NO.16, BENGALURU – 560 026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: UMA W/O SHANKARAGOUDA @ SHANKARALINGEGOUDA HURALI @ HURALIGOUDRA @ DEVALAPUR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD HOLD WORK R/O GUDI ONI, HAROBELAVADI DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT – 580 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21ST NOVEMBER, 2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.190 OF V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.10 16:39:34 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:377 RPFC NO.100080 OF 2024 2017, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION IN-PART 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 (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.190 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), challenging the order dated 21st November, 2019, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner- wife is allowed in-part and granted maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 01st June, 1993 at Dhurgadevi Temple, Dharwad. It is stated that prior to their marriage, the petitioner and respondent had love affair and also had physical relationship and as a result of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:377 RPFC NO.100080 OF 2024 the same, at the time of marriage, the petitioner-wife was eight months pregnant. It is also stated in the petition that the family members of the respondent-husband were teasing the petitioner-wife for having become pregnant before the marriage and as such, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. It is further stated that the respondent-husband was not taking care of the petitioner-wife by providing basic necessities to lead normal life and as such, she left the matrimonial home and residing with her parents. Hence, the petitioner-wife filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.190 of 2017 before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed objections denying the averments made in the petition. The respondent-husband disputes his marriage with the petitioner-wife as claimed by petitioner-wife. It is the categorical statement in the objections that there was no prior physical relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and as such, sought for dismissal of the petition. It is further stated that taking advantage of poverty of the respondent- husband, he was forced to marry the petitioner and the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:377 RPFC NO.100080 OF 2024 petitioner-wife is having an illicit relationship with someone else, through which, she become pregnant at the time of marriage. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner-wife examined herself as PW1 and got marked 9 documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. On the other hand respondent-husband examined 3 witnesses as RW1 to RW3 and got marked 3 documents as Exhibits R1 to R3. 6. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 21st November, 2019, allowed the petition in-part and directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband presented this petition . 7. Heard Sri. S.G. Kadadakatti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband and Sri. M.M. Hieremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent-wife. 8. Sri. S.G. Kadadakatti, earned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no lawful marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:377 RPFC NO.100080 OF 2024 wife, though admitted in the evidence before the Family Court that, she was pregnant on the date of the marriage, however, the said aspect has not been considered by the Family Court. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, Sri. M.M. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. 10. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, though the petitioner herein had disputed the marital status with the respondent-wife, however, to award maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, strict proof of marriage is a not a condition precedent in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CHANMUNIYA vs. VIRENDRA SINGH KUMAR KUSHWAHA AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 1 SCC 141. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court on Point No.1 in the impugned order, I am of the view that no interference be called for in this petition. It is also to be noted that, though the alleged marriage was said to have been held on 01st June, 1993, the petitioner-husband has not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:377 RPFC NO.100080 OF 2024 taken any steps to challenge the same. In that view of the matter, the petitioner herein cannot be permitted to allege that the respondent-wife was pregnant at the time of marriage by having illicit relationship with someone else under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39