- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170 RPFC No. 100168 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100168 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: 1. MAHANAND W/O. SHIVAKUMAR MELINAMANI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE. 2. LAXMIPATHI S/O. SHIVAKUMAR MELINAMANI, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT. 3. SANTOSHKUMAR S/O. SHIVAKUMAR MELINAMANI, AGE. 16 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, PETITIONER NO.3 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., PETITIONER NO.1 ALL ARE R/O. BINDARGI ONI, OLD - HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI 580024. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHIVKUMAR S/O. YAMANAPPA MELINAMANI, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. HEAD CONSTABLE, KASABAPETE POLICE STATION, OLD - HUBBALLI, DIST. HUBBALLI 582204. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI AND SRI. PRASHURAM C. SAJJANAR, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170 RPFC No. 100168 of 2023 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT HUBBALLI IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.406/2012 BY ALLOWING THE PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, 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 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 17.03.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.406/2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi1 dismissing the petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 22.04.1994 and in their wedlock two children were born namely petitioners No.2 and 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent is working as Head Constable in Kasabapete Police Station and he has 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170 RPFC No. 100168 of 2023 neglected the petitioners and also it is stated that the respondent has contracted with the 3rd marriage and accordingly the petitioners have left the matrimonial home. It is also stated that the petitioners are residing separately and accordingly sought for maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.406/2012. 4. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objection and stated that petitioner No.1 is not his wife and in order to extract money from the respondent, the petitioners have filed false petition claiming maintenance and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having considered the material on record, the Family Court by its order dated 17.03.2023 dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170 RPFC No. 100168 of 2023 6. I have heard Sri.Subhash J Baddi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Vishwanath S Bichagatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Family Court has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion to deny the maintenance to the petitioners despite the petitioners proving the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to Ex.P.31 which reads as “¥ÀAZÀ¥ÀwßAiÀÄgÀ ªÀÄĢݣÀ ¥Éưøï, eÁw-zsÀªÀÄð §zÀ°¹ LªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¥ÉÃzÉ” and submitted that these aspects have been ignored by the Family Court and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170 RPFC No. 100168 of 2023 examination of the impugned order would makes it clear as per para No.18 of the impugned order that, this Court in RPFC No.100054/2015 by its order dated 04.03.2015 set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration holding that the parties in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., need not prove the legality of marriage. 10. This Court has specifically considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348, and stated that in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, the rights of the parties cannot be looked into and accordingly directed the Family Court to dispose of the same. Despite the same, the Family Court having taken note of the observations made by this Court, however, erroneously and without application of mind passed the impugned order stating that the petitioners have not proved the marriage with respondent. In that view of the matter, this - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170 RPFC No. 100168 of 2023 Court finds fault with the learned Judge. Despite this Court has directed the learned Judge to dispose of the petition in accordance with the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, however, on the very same ground, learned Family Court Judge arrived at a conclusion, and such observation made by the learned Judge is to be deprecated despite the order passed by this Court, which is per se amounts to contempt of court in a judicial proceeding. Accordingly, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and as such the matter is remanded to the Family Court to dispose of the petition at the earliest. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER a) The petition is allowed. b) Order dated 17.03.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.406/2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3170 RPFC No. 100168 of 2023 hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration. c) In order to avoid further delay in the matter, parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 18.03.2025. d) The learned Additional Registrar General of this Court is requested to send a copy of this order to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, where the Presiding Officer is working to dictate that the Trial Judge to abide by the orders passed by this Court, being a Appellate Court. e) Copy of the order be made known to the Administrative Judge of the learned Family Court Judge. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7