Karnataka High Court
Devendra Kumar vs Renuka And Anr on 4 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1434
WP No.203102 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.203102 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
DEVENDRA KUMAR
S/O SHIVAPPA CHALAWADI,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER B.M.T.C DEPOT NO.27,
JIGANI, BENGALURU - 560 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RENUKA
Digitally signed W/O DEVENDRA KUMAR CHALAWADI,
by AGE: 31 YEARS,
SHIVAKUMAR OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
HIREMATH R/O: C/O: M.I. MAGI HOUSE,
Location: HIGH S.R COLONY, BEHIND BUDDA VIHAR,
COURT OF VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
KARNATAKA
2. SHRAIYAS
S/O DEVINDRA KUMAR CHALAWADI,
AGE: 01 YEARS, 05 MONTHS MINOR
NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN
OF RESPONDENT NO. 1.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI G.MADABHAVI,
SRI D.R.MALLED, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1434
WP No.203102 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
22-10-2024 PASSED ON I.A NO. VIII FILED UNDER SECTION
24 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT IN CRIMINAL
MISC.NO.355/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA
VIDE PRODUCED AND MARKED AS AT ANNEXURE-E, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) The petitioner is assailing the order dated 22.10.2024 on I.A No.8 in Crl.Misc.335/2023 on the file of Principal Judge,, Family Court, Vijayapura.
2. In terms of the aforementioned order, the above Court has allowed the interim application seeking interim maintenance and awarded Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of I.A No.8 in favour of the petitioners before it and against the respondent before it who is the petitioner before this Court.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1434 WP No.203102 of 2024
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on three grounds:
a) The petitioner has disputed his status as the husband of respondent No.1 in this petition.
b) Section 34 of the Family Court Act, 1984 is invoked seeking interim maintenance and there is no 'Section 34' in the Family Courts Act, 1984.
c) Even, if the application is construed as an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the son/daughter is not entitled to maintenance and only the spouse is entitled to maintenance.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would defend the impugned order and this Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and pursued the records.
5. This petition is filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and it is filed before the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984. There is no denial on the facts that, under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Code, there is a provision to claim for interim maintenance. Even, if the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1434 WP No.203102 of 2024 provision of law quoted in the application is erroneous, that cannot said that the application if otherwise maintainable, on the basis of averments made in the application, can be dismissed for quoting wrong provision. Hence, not quoting the correct provision is not a ground to reject the application.
6. As far as the contentions of the petitioner that he has disputed the status of respondent No.1 is concerned, prima facie record namely Birth Certificate of petitioner No.2 would reveal the name of the petitioner as father of petitioner No.2 and name of respondent No.1 as the mother. In addition, some other documents like rent receipt and pooja receipt are produced to prima facie establish the fact that petitioner is married to respondent No.1.
7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that, the contentions of the petitioner that he has disputed the respondent's status as his wife cannot be considered at this stage of the proceeding. It has to be established during the course of the trial.
8. As far as the contention that son cannot be awarded compensation under Section 24 of the Family Courts -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1434 WP No.203102 of 2024 Act is concerned, it is to be noticed that the application is not considered as the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is to be considered as application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the main petition is filed.
9. As far as the contentions relating to the quantum of maintenance concerned, it is noticed that the petitioner is earning Rs.40,000/- per month working as a driver in BMTC. The Court has awarded Rs.10,000/- to both respondents i.e., respondents 1 and 2. Considering the cost of living and the petitioner's present income, this Court is of the view that impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.
10. Hence, the contention that son of the petitioner is not entitled to interim maintenance is also tenable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
11. All opinions expressed in this order are only confined to the merit of the interim order and should not treated as the finding on the status of the parties.
12. All contentions are kept open.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1434 WP No.203102 of 2024
13. Amount deposited before this Court shall be transferred to the Trial Court and it shall be released in favour of the respondents.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE THM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35