- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8386 RPFC No. 100007 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100007 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RUKAYYA @ NASEEM W/O. MUKTUMHUSEN BAGWAN, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. KUMARI SANIYA D/O. MAKTUMHUSEN BAGAWAN, AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 3. KUMAR ABDULRAZAK S/O. MAKTUMHUSEAN BAGAWAN, AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. SINCE PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER AS MINOR GUARDIAN I.E. PETITIONER NO.1 ALL ARE R/O: PENDAR GALLI, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D. L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: MAKTUMHUSEN S/O. HASANSAB BAGAWAN, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. EMPLOYEE, C/O: VIJAYAPUR CIVIL COURT, VIJAYAPUR, TQ AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 101. …RESPONDENT (SOLE RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF CRL.MISC.NO.93/2019, DISPOSED OF ON 30.08.2024 BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BAGALKOTE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SATISFYING BY THIS COURT AS TO BE CORRECTNESS, LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY OF THE ORDER, AND AS TO THE REGULARITY OF SUCH PROCEEDING IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.93/2019, DATED 30.08.2024, PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8386 RPFC No. 100007 of 2025 AT BAGALKOTE, DISMISSING CLAIM OF PETITIONER NO.1 AND GRANTING MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.5000/- FOR PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 TILL DATE OF MARRIAGE AND ATTAINING MAJORITY RESPECTIVELY AND TO MODIFY AND ENHANCE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT FOR THEIR BARE SURVIVAL, EDUCATION AND STAYING IN RENTED HOUSE, FROM DATE OF FILING CRIMINAL MISC.NO.93/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. Petitioner-wife and children of the respondent are before this Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote, by which the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to extent claim made by the petitioner No.1 has been rejected. However, the claim made on behalf of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being the children of petitioner No.1 and respondent herein has been allowed directing the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- each. Aggrieved by the same present petition is filed by petitioner. 2. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent herein having been solemnized on 11.10.2009 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8386 RPFC No. 100007 of 2025 and out of the said marriage petitioner Nos.2 and 3 having been born to them is not in dispute. 3. Owing to marital discord between petitioner No.1 and the respondent, the parties approached the Family Court seeking appropriate reliefs. 4. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.267/2015 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Bagalkote. The said petition is marked as Ex.P2. It appears the matter was referred to the Lok-Adalath, where a compromise application was filed on 13.10.2015. In terms of which, the parties agreed to resume their marital life, with a clear understanding that, should the respondent fail to adhere to the agreed terms and conditions, the petitioner would be at liberty to initiate the fresh proceedings. The said compromise petition is marked as Ex.P3. The same was taken on record and Crl.Misc.No.267/2015 was accordingly disposed of on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8386 RPFC No. 100007 of 2025 13.10.2015, as reflected in the order sheet produced at Ex.P1. 5. Things stood thus, it appears, the petitioners once again approached the Family Court by filing the present petition in Crl.Misc.No.93/2019, alleging negligence on the part of the respondent in maintaining them. 6. In response to the aforesaid petition, the respondent – husband has set up a plea of “Talaq” as well as “Khula” and has claimed that he is not liable to pay any maintenance to the petitioners. 7. During the evidence, the petitioner – wife has been confronted with a document dated 12.05.2005 titled as “M¦àUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ”, purportedly entered between petitioner No.1 and the respondent, marked as per Ex.P6. The very same document has also been produced as Ex.D1. In addition, the respondent has submitted documents marked as Ex.R2 to Ex.R15, along with their respective - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8386 RPFC No. 100007 of 2025 translations, to contend that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent had been dissolved and that the respondent and petitioner has contracted another marriage. The aforesaid documents have been stoutly denied and disputed by the petitioner. 8. However, the Trial Court accepting the respondent’s version, dismissed the petition filed by petitioner No.1 and granted maintenance to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as noted above. It is this order which is put in question in the present matter. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, taking this Court through the contents of Ex.P6, also marked as Ex.D1 and reading the same in juxtaposition with the contents of the earlier petition filed in Crl.Misc.No.267/2015, produced at Ex.P2, the compromise entered into in the said proceedings produced at Ex.P3 and the order sheet maintained in the said matter before the Lok-Adalath produced at Ex.P1, submitted that the fabrication and manipulation of records is obvious and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8386 RPFC No. 100007 of 2025 palpable. It is further contended that when the parties had earlier approached the Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.267/2015, which resulted in a compromise, the very same respondent had never whispered anything whatsoever with regard to the existence of the document which is brought on record in the present proceedings marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.D1. 10. It is his vehement submission that, if at all any such agreement or understanding had been arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent as far back as on 12.05.2012, as alleged by the respondent, nothing prevented him from bringing the same on record in the previous proceedings. He further points out that the respondent is working as Court employee in the Vijayapura Court, as such no innocence or ignorance can be attributed to him. He submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate the circumstances and the contents of the documents, despite the same having been brought to its notice. Therefore, he insists that the impugned order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8386 RPFC No. 100007 of 2025 was passed without proper appreciation of the material evidence. Though it is summary proceedings, it ought to have been adverted to these facts and circumstances of the matter before arriving at the conclusion in accepting the evidence adduced by the respondent, while declining the relief sought by the petitioner. 11. Alternatively, he submits that, even assuming there exists an agreement dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1, such an agreement alone would not disentitle the petitioner from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, he submits that the order impugned be set- aside and matter be remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. 12. Heard and perused the records. 13. Though notice of this petition was duly served, the respondent has remained absent. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8386 RPFC No. 100007 of 2025 14. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not indicate any appreciation of the aforesaid documents in Exs.P1 to P3, nor any acknowledgement of the existence of Ex.P6 and Ex.D1. 15. There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in that, had the Family Court appreciated the contents of aforesaid documents brought before it, and the circumstances under which they were brought before it, the subsequent documents produced by the respondent regarding the petitioner No.1 contracting the alleged second marriage with petitioner No.1 would also have to be subjected to scrutiny. Considering the conduct of the respondent in not bringing the truth when it mattered most, the evidence led by the respondent, therefore, has to be viewed and scrutinized carefully and minutely. 16. Since this exercise, which was required to be undertaken by the Family Court, has not been done, this - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8386 RPFC No. 100007 of 2025 Court is of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order passed by the Trial Court is set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration. As an interim measure, the respondent shall continue to pay Rs.5,000/- to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. In addition, he shall pay Rs.5,000/- to petitioner No.1 until further orders are passed by the Family Court. 17. The Family Court shall also ensure that the parties file their respective affidavits of their assets, income and liabilities and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RHR/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5