Smt Lakshmi W/O Ningappa Bagali Vs Ningappa S/O Mailrappa

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5062 RPFC No. 100214 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100214 OF 2022 (-)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. NINGAPPA BAGALI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR, GADAG, TAL AND DIST: GADAG-582101.

¶6

SUSHMA D/O. NINGAPPA BAGALI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR, GADAG, TAL AND DIST: GADAG-582101.

¶7

AKSHATA D/O. NINGAPPA BAGALI, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR, GADAG, TAL AND DIST: GADAG-582101.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.22 15:55:15 +0530

¶12

NINGAPPA S/O. MAILRAPPA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RTD. K.E.B. EMPLOYEE, R/O. RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR, GADAG, TAL AND DIST: GADAG-582101.

¶13

(BY SRI. KIRAN M. GOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 PRAYING SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG IN CRL. MISC. NO.52/2020 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5062 RPFC No. 100214 of 2022

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the Order dated 08.07.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.52/2020 on the file of I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Gadag, dismissing the petition.

¶22

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred with reference to their ranking before the Family Court, Gadag.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent and in their wedlock, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were born. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent was treating the petitioners inhumanly and also not providing sufficient means for livelihood and as such, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.52/2020 on the file of I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Gadag, seeking maintenance.

¶24

After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objection and contended that petitioner No.1

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5062 RPFC No. 100214 of 2022

¶26

is not the legally wedded wife of respondent and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are not his children. Accordingly it is submitted that he married one Vijayalaxmi, however, due to matrimonial dispute, said Vijayalaxmi had filed Crl.Misc.No.185/2011 before the II JMFC Cour at Hubballi under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, and accordingly the respondent sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its Order dated 08.07.2022, dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this Revision Petition.

¶28

I have heard Sri. Vijay M. Malali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Kiran M. Goli, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶29

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reasons assigned by the Family Court requires to be interfered with and accordingly sought for allowing this petition.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent has disputed his relationship with petitioner

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5062 RPFC No. 100214 of 2022

¶33

No.1 and accordingly sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

¶34

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully examined the reasons assigned by the Family Court, particularly in paragraph No. 21 of the Order dated 08.07.2022.

¶35

Taking into consideration the fact that it is well established in law that strict proof of marriage is not condition precedent for award of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which aspect was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CHANMUNIYA VS VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA & ANR reported in 2011 1 SCC 141 and in that view of the matter, the reason assigned by the Family Court is erroneous and contrary to the aforesaid Judgment.

¶36

In the result, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶39

(ii) The order dated 08.07.2022 in C.Misc.No.52/2020 on the file of I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Gadag is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5062 RPFC No. 100214 of 2022

¶42

Family Court, Gadag for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above.

¶43

(iii) In order to avoid any further delay in the matter, since the parties are represented through their learned counsel, parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Gadag on 23.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. without waiting for any further notice in the matter. On their appearance, the Family Court, Gadag is requested to dispose of the matter at the earliest.

¶44

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶45

sac CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt Lakshmi W/O Ningappa Bagali v. Ningappa S/O Mailrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmi W/O Ningappa Bagali v. Ningappa S/O Mailrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushmitha W/O Anandagouda Naikanur Vs Anandgouda S/O Veeranagouda Naikanur

Smt. Gangamma K W/O K Hanumanthappa Vs K Hanumanthappa S/O K Bheemappa

Smt Vaishali Vs Shri Chandrakant Bhima Gurav

Smt. Sameera Anjum W/O Mohammed Isaque D/O Mohammed Isaque Vs Mohammed Shafi Y S/O Ansar

Shri. Bhimaraddi S/O. Krishnaraddi Kurtakoti Vs Sri. Mustaq S/O. Rehman Daragad

Sri. Basappa Ramappa Ingalgi Vs Smt. Muttawwa