- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16499 WP No. 106221 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106221 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: RIYAZAHMAD S/O BADRUDDIN SHAIKH, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE (WRONGLY SHOWN AS BUSINESS) R/O. K.B.ROAD, TATAGAR CROSS, YELLAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-587359. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. FARHNAZ W/O. RIYAZAHMAD SHAIKH, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK 2. MOHAMMAD KHALANDAR S/O. RIYAZAHMAD SHAIKH, AGE. 13 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, 3. AZRA D/O. RIYAZAHMAD SHAIKH AGE. 9 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, (SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS R/BY MINOR GUARDIAN I.E., NATURAL MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. FARHNAZ W/O. RIYAZAHMAD SHAIKH) ALL ARE R/O. K.B.ROAD, TATAGAR CROSS, YELLAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581359 NOW AT C/O. IBRAHIM S/O. ABDUL HAMID SHAIKH VALISHA GALLI, YELLAPUR-581359. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R2, R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16499 WP No. 106221 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: A) ISSUE A WRIT, OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-F ORDER PASSED ON IA NO. I, FILED U/S 125(1) OF CR. PC., IN CRL. MISC. NO. 43/2023, ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELLAPUR, DATED. 03-08-2024. B) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER WHICH DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. “Issue a Writ, or direction or order in the nature of certiorari by quashing the Annexure-F order passed on I.A No. I, filed U/S 125(1) of Cr. PC., in Crl. Misc. No. 43/2023, on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Yellapur, dated. 03-08- 2024. b. Issue any other writ, direction or order which deems fit under the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri.Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shashank Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16499 WP No. 106221 of 2024 3. The petitioner is the husband; the 1st respondent is the wife; and respondents 2 and 3 are the children born from the wedlock. The petitioner and the 1st respondent were married, and two children were born from the wedlock. 4. The issue is not with regard to the merits of the matter pending before the concerned Court. The petitioner- husband is before this Court calling in question the order granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and the two children born from the wedlock. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rs.10,000/- is excessive, as the petitioner is running a provision store and does not earn sufficient income to maintain the wife and children. 6. The said submission is refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents. Even otherwise, what is awarded is Rs.10,000/- to three persons, i.e., the wife and two minor children, which can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be on the higher side. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16499 WP No. 106221 of 2024 7. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in ANJU GARG VS. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG1, paragraphs 6 to 10, which read as follows: “6. This Court at the request of ld. counsel for the parties had referred the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of settlement, however, the same having failed, this Court had passed the following order on 17.08.2022:— “It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that the efforts for settlement have not fructified. Hence, we have commenced hearing of the matter. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a pertinent point that the respondent-husband indeed leveled allegation of the personal nature against the petitioner No. 1 questioning her chastity, particularly with reference to the birth of the son and therefore, she cannot be said to be unjustified in living separate. We have taken note of the submissions so made and have posed the question to the learned counsel for respondent that prima facie the petitioner No. 1 appears to be justified in living separately and if that be so, her entitlement to claim maintenance cannot be ignored. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for time to complete his instructions as also to advice the respondent appropriately. Time, as prayed for, is allowed.” 7. The Court thereafter had heard the learned counsel for the parties, as also the respondent who was present in person in the Court on 16.09.2022. 1 2022 SCC Online SC 1314 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16499 WP No. 106221 of 2024 8. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the High Court had passed the impugned order in a very perfunctory manner without appreciating the conduct of the respondent during the proceedings before the Family Court. He submitted that the version of the appellant-wife, who had stepped into the witness box, as also the version of the other witnesses examined by her had remained unchallenged, as the Family Court had closed the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court not to believe the version of the appellant- wife which was stated by her on oath. However, the Family Court accepted all the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent, without there being any evidence on record adduced by the respondent, and disallowed the Maintenance application qua the appellant- wife, and the High Court also erroneously confirmed the said order passed by the Family Court. The learned counsel for the respondent however submitted that the appellant-wife had left the matrimonial home along with the children without any justifiable reason and had failed to prove that she was unable to maintain herself. He further submitted that though the respondent has a party plot, the same having been closed, he has no source of income. According to him, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two courts, should not be interfered by this Court. 9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena1. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: “In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16499 WP No. 106221 of 2024 16. “… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.” 8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3) 3. “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.” 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15) 15. “… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.” 10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16499 WP No. 106221 of 2024 356], reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6) 6. “… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787].” 11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children”. 10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai2, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16499 WP No. 106221 of 2024 this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.” 8. The petition does not merit any indulgence. The petition, being devoid of merit, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14