- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4292 RPFC No. 100196 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100196 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HANAMAVVA W/O. GUDADAPPA KURI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HUVINAL, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL-583281. 2. KUMARI KAVITA D/O. GUDADAPPA KURI, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE SHE IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMT. HANAMAVVA W/O. GUDADAPPA KURI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HUVINAL, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL-583281. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. GUDADAPPA S/O. HANCHALAPPA KURI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BEVOOR VILLAGE-583231, R/O. HUVINAL, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL-583281. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT KOPPAL IN CRL.MISC NO.20/2021 THEREBY DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 AND AWARD MAXIMUM MAINTENANCE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4292 RPFC No. 100196 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent - husband challenging the order dated 05.09.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.20/2021 on the file of the Principal Judge Family Court, Koppal1. 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 of petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized 11 years back at Huvinal village of Koppal taluk and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 is born. It is stated that the marital life with the respondent by the petitioner No.1 was for few months and thereafter the respondent was addicted to bad vices. It is also stated that respondent was assaulting petitioner No.1 to bring additional dowry and also insulting petitioner No.1 and as such petitioner No.1 has left matrimonial home and hence 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4292 RPFC No. 100196 of 2024 the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.20/2021 seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the respondent - husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection denying the relationship with petitioner No.1. It is also stated in the objection statement that the respondent has married one sushilamma and having three children through her and accordingly the respondent disgusted with the marital life and accordingly petitioner No.1 has renounced the worldly affairs and become Jogati ,after performing necessary ceremonies at Temple and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by order dated 05.09.2024, dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner No.1 has not proved the marriage relationship with the respondent – husband and accordingly the present petition is filed by the petitioners. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4292 RPFC No. 100196 of 2024 6. Sri.Neelendra D Gunde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the finding recorded by the Family Court denying maintenance to the petitioners herein is incorrect as the petitioner No.2 herein is born in wedlock between petitioner No.1 with the respondent and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that as the petitioner No.1 is not the wife of the respondent herein and therefore payment of maintenance does not arise under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as the marriage between petitioner No.1 is disputed. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the sole ground on which the Family Court has dismissed the petition is that petitioner No.1 is not a legally wedded wife of the respondent – husband. Taking into consideration the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4292 RPFC No. 100196 of 2024 and Another reported in JT 2010 (11) SC 132, wherein it is held that strict proof of marriage is not condition precedent for granting maintenance and therefore the reasons assigned by the Family Court is incorrect and accordingly I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is a fit case to remit the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. Order dated 05.09.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.20/2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Koppal is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4292 RPFC No. 100196 of 2024 iii. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 26.03.2025 at 11 a.m. iv. It is also made clear that the parties are directed to lead evidence and produce relevant documents in the circumstances of the case. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18