- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1163 RPFC No. 100159 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100159 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUDHA W/O. T. RANGANAYAKULU, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. PLOT NO.15, BATRI NAGAR, RAGHAVA KALYANI COLONY, 2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, NEAR KIDS SCHOOL, BALLARI-583275. 2. NIHAAR S/O. T. RANGANAYAKULU, AGE. 10 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. PLOT NO.115, BATRI NAGAR, RAGHAVA KALYANA COLONY, 2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, NEAR KIDS SCHOOL, BALLARI-583275 R/BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.1 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. POOJA P. VADIRAJA, ADVOCATE) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.24 13:09:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1163 RPFC No. 100159 of 2024 AND: T RANGANAYAKULU S/O. T. THIPPAIAH AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. 1/100, KAMMA STREAT, CHAYAPURAM VILLAGE, ANANTHAPUR-515842, ANDHRA PRADESH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR G. RAMPUR & SMT. MAHIMA V. KATTI, ADVOCATES) ------ THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED THE ORDER AND ENHANCE THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT DATED 04.05.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, IN CRIL. MISC. NO. 250/2022. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.250/2022 challenging the order dated 04.05.2024 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1163 RPFC No. 100159 of 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short “the Family Court”) rejecting the petition insofar as petitioner No.1-wife is concerned and granting maintenance of ₹6,000/- per month to petitioner No.2-son as the same requires enhancement of maintenance. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the marriage between petitioner No.1 with respondent was solemnised on 05.02.2011 at Ballari and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. It is also stated in the petition that, after the marriage, the parents of the respondent- husband have made a demand for additional dowry and as the parents of petitioner No.1-wife were not able to mobilise the same, the family dispute arose between the parties. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent-husband assaulted petitioner No.1 on various occasions demanding dowry and therefore, having not tolerated the inhuman act on the part of the respondent-husband, the petitioners left the matrimonial home and residing separately from the respondent-husband. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1163 RPFC No. 100159 of 2024 Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.250/ 2022 before the Family Court seeking maintenance. 4.1. On service of notice, respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections stating that petitioner No.1 herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause and accordingly denied the allegations made against the respondent by the petitioners. Hence, the respondent has sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 04.05.2024 rejected the petition insofar as petitioner No.1-wife is concerned, however granted maintenance of ₹6,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2-son. Feeling aggrieved by the same, both the petitioners have filed this petition. 5. I have heard Smt. Pooja P Vadiraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Santoshkumar G Rampur, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Smt. Pooja P Vadiraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is a measure of social justice taken to protect the interest of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1163 RPFC No. 100159 of 2024 destitute wife and therefore, dismissing the petition by the Family Court is incorrect and accordingly places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kachwaha v Anil Kachwaha1 and also in the case of Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto2 and argued that the Family Court ought not to have interfered with the dispute with regard to the separation of the parties unless in a separate proceedings and accordingly, sought for allowing this petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband sought to justify the impugned order and argued that the petitioner No.1 has left the matrimonial home without any cause and therefore, the finding recorded by the Family Court is just and proper. In this regard, he relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deb Narayan Halder v. Smt. Anushree Halder3 and argued that the judgment of the Family Court requires to be confirmed in this petition. 1 AIR 2015 SC 554 2 2025 INSC 55 3 AIR 2003 SC 3174 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1163 RPFC No. 100159 of 2024 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as the petitioner No.1 married with respondent on 05.02.2011 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. It is also not in dispute that the parties are residing separately. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was not providing basic necessities and was not looking after the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home. In the circumstances of such case, taking into consideration the object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which is a measure of social justice extended to protect women and children and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, it is also to be noted here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajathi vs C. Ganesan4 has held that it is the duty of the husband to take care of his wife. In that view of the matter, taking into account the allegation made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioner No.1 has left the matrimonial home without any cause, the said reason cannot be considered to be a just ground to deny the maintenance to the petitioner- 4 AIR 1999 SC 2374 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1163 RPFC No. 100159 of 2024 wife. In this regard, it is relevant to deduce the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Kumari (supra). In the said case, at paragraph 38, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “38. The reason for this is not far to gather. In Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.) and Ors. MANU/SC/0147/2000: (2000) SCC 180, this Court clarified that wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of deserting her husband, would not be entitled to maintenance Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure as long as the marriage subsisted, but she would be entitled to such maintenance once she attained the status of a divorced wife, in the light of the definition of a 'wife' in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) code of Criminal Procedure. Dinesh, therefore, sought to protect himself from a claim by Reena for maintenance by projecting the disobeyed restitution decree as a defence and as long as she did not attain the status of a divorced wife, that protection would endure to his benefit. This stalemate of sorts created by Dinesh clearly reflects his lack of bonafides demonstrates his attempt disown all responsibility towards his wife, Reena. These factors, taken cumulatively, clearly manifest that Reena had more than sufficient reason to stay away from the society of her husband, Dinesh and her refusal to live with him, notwithstanding the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, therefore, cannot be held against her. In consequence, the disqualification Under Section - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1163 RPFC No. 100159 of 2024 125(4) Code Criminal Procedure was not attracted and the High Court erred grievously in applying the same and holding that Reena was not entitled to the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court.” 9. Further, taking into account the scope and ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhilash v. Parakash5, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Family Court denying the maintenance to the petitioner No.1-wife requires to be interfered with in this petition. 10. It is also made clear that the quantum of maintenance granted insofar as petitioner No.2 requires reconsideration by the Family Court. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 04.05.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.250/2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for appropriate adjudication to determine the quantum of 5 AIR 2020 SC 4355 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1163 RPFC No. 100159 of 2024 maintenance to be awarded to the petitioners herein in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above and to dispose of the petition accordance with law. iii) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, in order to avoid further delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 19.02.2024 at 11.00 a.m., before the concerned Family Court and the Family Court is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest. iv) With this observation, the above petition is disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29