- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9484 CRL.P No.100057 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100057 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. KUMAR SUNIL S/O LAXMAN CHANAVEER, AGE: 5 YEARS, (SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER AND MINOR GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.2) 2. SMT. AMBAWWA W/O LAXMAN CHANAVEER, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/O: KAJIBILAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI-587313. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. LAXMAN S/O MALLAPPA CHANAVEER, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAJIBILAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ADMIT THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/09/2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT SITTING AT JAMAKHANDI IN CRL.REV.PET.NO.40/2017 AND RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED BY JMFC JAMAKHANDI IN CRL.MISC.NO.31/2014 DATED 31/01/2017, UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.08.05 10:18:06 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9484 CRL.P No.100057 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who claim to be the son and wife of the respondent, calling in question the validity of the order dated 18.09.2019 passed in Crl.RP No.40/2017 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, Sitting at Jamkhandi, whereby the order passed on Crl.Misc.31/2014 dated 31.01.2017 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., Jamkhandi, allowing the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granting Rs.2,000/- maintenance to the wife and Rs.1,000/- maintenance to the son, was set aside. 2. The parties are referred to by their ranks in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, a petition came to be filed by the wife and son seeking maintenance against the husband who was the respondent, claiming that they were neglected to be maintained by the husband. 4. The case that is made out by the respondent and evidence as well as objections is one of total denial. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9484 CRL.P No.100057 of 2020 5. The petitioners have led in evidence and got marked the documents in support of their case. The wife Ambawwa Laxman Chanaveer has led her evidence as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P11. The other witnesses deposed on behalf of the petitioners were PW.2-Gurupadappa Sidramappa Basaragi who was the local resident and PW.3- Appasab Sadashiva Malashetty who was the paternal uncle of the petitioner no.2. 6. The respondent has adduced oral evidence and got examined himself as RW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. 7. The petition came to be allowed by recording a finding and points for consideration which were framed as regards entitlement of maintenance to wife and son. 8. The learned Trial Judge has appreciated the evidence on record and observed that the petitioners were entitled to claim maintenance. At para 11, the learned Trial Judge has recorded a finding that petitioner no.1 was the minor son of the respondent. The documents that were marked in evidence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9484 CRL.P No.100057 of 2020 which may be of relevance insofar as claim of maintenance is Ex.P2, which is the Birth Certificate issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, which would show the name of son of the respondent who was petitioner no.1. The Birth Certificate at Ex.P2 would also indicate the date of birth as 20.04.2013 and name of the father as Laxman Mallappa Chanaveera and the name of the mother as Ambakka. The other document that would be of relevance is Ex.P4 which is the Birth Certificate issued by the Primary Health Center, Gothe, Jamakhandi Taluk, Bagalkot District, which records that Ambakka, W/o L. Chanaveera had delivered a male baby on 20.04.2013. The said certificate is marked as Ex.P4. 9. It is this order which is taken upon in revision before the District and Sessions Court which allowed the petition filed by the respondent by reversing the finding given by the learned trial Judge as regards relationship of the petitioners with the respondent not having been proved. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the finding of fact regarding relationship could not have been disturbed in exercise of revisional powers by the Revisional - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9484 CRL.P No.100057 of 2020 Court. It is further submitted that the documents including Ex.P2 and P4 are sufficient to record a finding as regards the relationship, at least as regards the first petitioner who is the son. Accordingly, it is submitted that the finding of the Revisional Court ought to be set aside. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no finding in the proceedings emphatically regarding relationship between the petitioners and the respondent as regards the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in criminal miscellaneous proceedings. It is submitted that the burden is on the petitioners to prove their relationship with the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the documents that were filed at the time of filing of the petition do not inspire confidence. 12. Heard both sides. 13. It must be noticed that, at the outset the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., are summary proceedings. It is also necessary to notice that under Section 125 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., right of maintenance enures to the illegitimate minor child as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9484 CRL.P No.100057 of 2020 well. It must be noticed that in criminal miscellaneous proceedings, the court has ordered on the premise of relationship of son and father, wife and husband. At para 11 of the order, the court has specifically observed as follows: CfðzÁgÀ £ÀA.1 JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌ ªÀÄUÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 14. It is on the basis of such finding, the court has recorded that the respondent has failed to discharge his obligation to maintain the wife and son and has ordered maintenance. 15. Insofar as relationship between the first petitioner and the respondent, as noticed above, Ex.P2 is the Birth Certificate issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, which is a document issued by a public authority and due weightage can be given to such public record. As noticed above, the name of the respondent is shown as the father and the name of the second petitioner is shown as the mother and date of birth is shown as 20.04.2013. Such date is also found in Ex.P4, which is the Birth Certificate issued by the Primary Health Center, Gothe, Jamakhandi Taluk, Bagalkot District. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9484 CRL.P No.100057 of 2020 The said certificate is also issued by the Government Official and due weightage is to be assigned to it. 16. Insofar as such evidence, insofar as name of the son who was the first petitioner, the finding of the court in Cril.Mis.31/2014 requires to be upheld. The Revisional Court ought not to have interfered with such finding as the revisional powers cannot be enlarged and is to be limited to jurisdictional errors. 17. Accordingly, this court finds that the revisional court ought not to have interfered in the order passed by the trial court in Crl.Mis.31/2014 insofar as awarding maintenance to the first petitioner. Though the amount of Rs.1,000/- per month awarded to the first petitioner is very meager, the question of entering into sufficiency of it does not arise as the court has taken judicial requirement of maintenance and has awarded the said amount. 18. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-establishment of relationship with the second petitioner who is the wife is required to be demonstrated that she is the legally wedded wife. However, insofar as son is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9484 CRL.P No.100057 of 2020 concerned, in light of documents produced as per Ex.P2 and P4 and material on record, the finding of the court in Crl.Mis.31/2014 ought not to have been interfered with. The case insofar as second petitioner who is the wife, it is necessary to observe that the second petitioner ought to have demonstrated that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The evidence on record is ambiguous insofar as such relationship is concerned. Accordingly, the question of interfering with the finding recorded by the Revisional Court as regards entitlement of the wife would not arise and does not call for interference. 19. Accordingly, the order passed in Crl.RP No.40/2017 insofar as setting aside of the order passed in Crl.Misc.31/2014 as regards the first petitioner is set aside and the entitlement of maintenance to the first petitioner in Crl.Misc.31/2014 is upheld and order in Crl.Mis.31/2014 to such extent is affirmed. The petition stands disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP, CT:VP