- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5184 RPFC No. 100141 of 2023 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. 100141 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SMT. TULAJAMMA W/O. ASHOK HODA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TAVARAGERA-584131, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: ASHOK S/O. ADAPPA HODA, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR DYAMAVVA TEMPLE, TAVARAGERA-584131, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2022 IN CRL. REV. PETITION NO.19/2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT KOPPAL AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CRL.MISC.NO.415/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:37 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5184 RPFC No. 100141 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner in Crl.Misc.415/2016 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kushtagi, granting maintenance and the same was rejected in Crl. Revision Petition No.19/2022 by Judgment dated 27.10.2022 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Koppal, allowing the Crl. Revision Petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Addl. Civil Judge, Kushtagi. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 28.02.1985 and thereafter the respondent/husband neglected to take care of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner filed Crl.Misc.415/2016 seeking maintenance from the respondent. 4. The Family Court by order dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure- D) granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner/wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent/husband has challenge the same in Crl. Revision Petition No.19/2022 on the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5184 RPFC No. 100141 of 2023 file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Kushtagi and the said Court by order dated 27.10.2022 allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court in Crl.Misc.415/2016. Hence this petition is filed by the petitioner/wife. 5. I have heard Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent though served, has remained absent. 6. Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the Revisional Court has committed an error in refusing the grant of maintenance to the petitioner herein and has gone into merits of the case with regard to legality of the marriage between the parties is concerned and same is impermissible under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 7. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is the case of the petitioner herein before the Family Court in Crl.Misc.415/2016 that marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized and thereafter the respondent has neglected to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5184 RPFC No. 100141 of 2023 take care of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, as it is settled principle in law that strict proof of marriage is not condition precedent for granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (See CHANMUNIYA Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA & ANR. reported in 2011 (1) SCC 141), I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 in crl. Rev. Petition No.19/2022 requires to be set aside. 8. I have also carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court in Crl.Misc.415/2016, whereby the Family Court, without considering the factual aspects, has granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and this Court is of the opinion that the original Court in Crl.Misc.415/2016 has not applied its mind in a manner as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAMIMA FAROOQUI VS. SHAHID KHAN reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 wherein, grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is based on the principle of sustenance of destitute woman and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5184 RPFC No. 100141 of 2023 petitioner to remand the matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) Judgment dated 27.10.2022 in Crl. Revision Petition No.19/2022 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Koppal, is hereby set aside. (iii) The Order dated 30.07.2019 in Crl. Misc. No.415/2016, on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kushtagi, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the said Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above. (iv) The Family Court is directed to re-determine the grant of maintenance to the petitioner herein, in the light of the observation made above. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13