Karnataka High Court
Pooja And Anr vs Gangadhar on 21 November, 2025
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7065
RPFC No. 200082 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200082 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. POOJA W/O GANGADHAR MANKAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NILL,
R/O. C/O PLOT NO. 69, ALAND ROAD,
NEAR QUADRI CHOWK,
VISHWARADHYA COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. NISHAN S/O GANGADHAR MANKAR,
AGE: 5 YEARS (MINOR),
U/G OF HIS NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA AND:
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA GANGADHAR S/O GUTTAPPA MANKAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT MANAGER
AT GENPACT COMPANY,
R/O. H.NO. 9/587/36/2/24,
SIDDESHWAR NAGAR,
BEHIND ASHRWAD KALYAN MANTAP,
NEW RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI-585103.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DTD. 20.08.2025)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7065
RPFC No. 200082 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 30.04.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPLE JUDGE
FAMILY COURT AT KALABURAGI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.141/2021. b)
ISSUE ANY OTHER DIRECTION IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABOVE CASE AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) Petitioners-wife and child before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Cri.Misc.No.141/2021 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, by which the Family Court has dismissed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners herein.
2. The palpable reasons which are assigned for rejection of the petition is found at para 15, which reads as under:
"15. Admittedly the petitioner No.2 is minor school going child. The respondent and petitioner No.1 being parents of the child are bound to maintain petitioner No.2. When he is -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7065 RPFC No. 200082 of 2024 HC-KAR jobless and he is not recovered from paralysis, he cannot pay the maintenance to the petitioner No.2 at present. So the petitioner No.1 being the mother has to look after petitioner No.2 until the respondent is able to do the work and earn sufficient money to provide maintenance to the petitioner No.2. Hence, I answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 in partly affirmative and point No.3 in the negative."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid reasons assigned by the Family Court runs contrary to the contents of the objection statement. He also submits that apart from the above, the Family Court seems to have taken into consideration the purported admission made by the PW1 regarding respondent suffering paralysis and he being in coma under treatment as mentioned at page 18 of the impugned judgment. Thus, he submits that the aforesaid reasonings are without any basis. Hence, seeks for setting aside of the order.
4. Though notice of this petition has been served on the respondent, there is no representation.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7065 RPFC No. 200082 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners, what has swayed in the mind of the Family Court to reject the petition appears to be the purported admission made by petitioner as mentioned at page No.18 of the impugned order, which reads "but PW1 admitted that on 05.12.2023 he suffered paralysis and as on today he is in coma and under treatment".
7. The Family Court ought to have seen that no such stand has been taken by the respondent-husband in his detailed statement of objection filed in response to the petition filed by the wife. All that he has mentioned is about he undergoing surgery for his "kidney stones". There is no whisper with regard to he suffering any paralysis or he being in coma at any point in time.
8. The Family Court therefore ought not to have relied upon the so called admission by the petitioner which is neither based on any foundational pleading of the respondent nor arising out of any facts and evidence produced on record, particularly, when there is no dispute -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7065 RPFC No. 200082 of 2024 HC-KAR of the fact that respondent was working in a private company as an Assistant Manager.
9. In that view of the matter, the dismissal of the petition by the Family Court for the reasons noted above cannot be sustained.
10. The petition is disposed of.
11. The impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.141/2021 by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, is set aside.
12. The matter is remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in the matter and petition shall be disposed of within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15;CT:PK