- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15602 WP No. 107462 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 107462 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: ASHOKA BANDIWADDAR S/O. DUAGAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: LAB TECHNICIAN R/O. 245, BLOCK 21, APMC MARKET YARD, KSRP POLICE QUARTERS-590010 BELAGAVI TQ AND DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y. KOTRESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SARITA W/O. ASHOKA BANDIWADDAR AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 2. SAMARTHA S/O. ASHOK AGE: 7 YEARS SINCE PETITIONER NO.2 IS THE MINOR REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GAURDIAN SMT. SARITA BOTHE ARE R/O. C/O. SHIVAKKA W/O. IRAPPA KALLURU H.NO.600, 1ST CROSS RAM NAGAR, KANGRALI K.H., TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI-590010. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BELAGAVI IN CRL. MISC.NO.62/2023, ANNEXURE-A AND BE DISMISSED THE MAINTENANCE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN CRL. MSIC. NO.62/2023. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15602 WP No. 107462 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 an Order or Writ in the nature Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Learned 1st Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Belagavi in Crl.Misc.No.62/2023, ANNEXURE-“A” and be dismissed the maintenance petition filed by the respondent no.1 before the trial court in Crl. Msic. No.62/2023. b) Pass any other appropriate order or directions which are deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioner is the husband. The respondents are the wife and a seven-year-old child born from the wedlock. The marriage between the two takes place on 19.05.2014 and the the relationship appears to have floundered. On the floundering of the relationship, the parties are before the Family Court seeking annulment of marriage. 3. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the proceedings before the Family Court. The issue is with regard to an order directing payment of maintenance from the hands of the husband to the respondent wife and a child. The Family - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15602 WP No. 107462 of 2025 Court has ordered maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the wife and Rs.4,000/- to the child, respectively. 4. The husband is before the Court calling in question the said order, on the score that he has to take care of his mother who is ailing and therefore he cannot take care of his wife and the child who need maintenance. The submission of the learned counsel by the petitioner does not merit any acceptance. As long as the relationship between the husband and the wife subsists, it is the duty of the husband to take care of the wife and the child unless the wife is otherwise gainfully employed. The order is granting interim maintenance which is subject to change before the concerned Court. If the petition would be entertained and the maintenance so ordered would be stalled it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, wherein it has held as follows: “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. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15602 WP No. 107462 of 2025 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) 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15602 WP No. 107462 of 2025 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) 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15602 WP No. 107462 of 2025 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 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. 11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15602 WP No. 107462 of 2025 how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no. 2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife. 12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order. 13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15602 WP No. 107462 of 2025 business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son. 14. It is accordingly directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the Family Court. The entire amount of arrears shall be deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within eight weeks from today, after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by him. 5. Hence, there is no warrant for interference at the hands of this Court. The petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/-CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57