Smt. Boya Asha W/O Honnur Rudraiah Vs Sri Honnuru Rudraiah S/O Honnuru Yerriswamy

SMT. BOYA ASHA W/O. HONNUR RUDRAIAH, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O:#134, WARD NO. 3, VALMIKI STREET, MICHERI POST, CHARAKUNTA VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST.BELLARI.

¶10

HONNUR DEEPIKA D/O. HONNUR RUDRAIAH, AGE: 3 YEARS, R/O: #134, WARD NO.3, VALMIKI STREET, MICHERI POST, CHARKUNTA VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST.BALLARI SINCE MINOR R/BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER PETITIONER NO. 1

¶11

MANJANNA E

¶12

Digitally signed byMANJANNA E Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.02.01 11:43:02+0530

¶13

(BY SRI. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. HONNURU RUDRAIAH S/O. HONNURU YERRISWAMY, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. JCB DRIVER, R/O: DOOR NO. 5/898, B.C.COLON, NEGEPALLI VILLAGE, KANEKAL MANDALA, ANATHAPURAM DISTRCIT, ANDHARA PRADESH. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:953 RPFC No. 100081 of 2023

¶18

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI IN CRL. MISC.NO.64/2022 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2023 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI IN CRL.MISC.NO.64/2022, BY ALLOWING THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS AND BY DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO PAY MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.15,000/- TO PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Respondent is served remained absent.

¶23

In this petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 01.03.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.64 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Belllari, dismissing the petition on the ground of jurisdiction.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and taking into consideration the order dated 07.07.2022, in RPFC No.100043 of 2020, wherein in this Court at paragraph 10 held as follows:

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC-D:953 RPFC No. 100081 of 2023

¶27

“10. On perusal of the aforementioned finding recorded by Hon’ble Supreme Court, since Section 125 of Cr.P.C is a social measure providing immediate relief to the destitute wife and children, prima-facie, accepting the duly sworn affidavit by aggrieved parties (wife and children) that they are residing away from the matrimonial home and the address shown in the affidavit is to be accepted. Indeed the Family Court ought to have accepted the address provided in the petition supported by an affidavit by the petitioners and should have issued notice to the respondent. Raising objection with regard to residential proof of the petitioners at that juncture itself would defeat the very purpose of scope of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Undisputably, the affidavit is supported by an application and the petition is preferred by the wife and children seeking maintenance. It is also recorded by the deponent in the said affidavit that they are residing separately from the husband/father and therefore, I am of the view that raising objection at the initial stage, directing the petitioners to provide a residential address with regard to the jurisdiction aspect, would defeat the entire legislative intention of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. May be, the jurisdictional aspect is required with regard to the competency of the Court, however, such a requirement may be an exception to the provisions under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for the reasons mentioned above. If the applicant/petitioner filed petition along

¶28

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:953 RPFC No. 100081 of 2023

¶29

with an affidavit disclosing their residential address in the duly sworn affidavit, that itself is sufficient to continue the proceedings to provide immediate relief to the destitute wife/children.”

¶30

4. Taking into consideration the declaration of

¶31

law made by this court, the Family Court has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of jurisdiction despite the fact that, petitioners, in the cause title, has stated that the petitioners are residing at No.134, Ward No.3, Valmiki Steet, Micheri Post, Charakunta village, Bellari Taluk and District and the claim petition is supported by affidavit of the petitioners. Accordingly, I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Family Court to dispose of the case on merits without considering jurisdictional issue is concerned in terms of the observations made above. In the result I pass the follows:

¶32