AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner/wife, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as the 'Family Court'), in Criminal Miscellaneous No.29/2021, whereby the petition filed by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), came to be dismissed, has preferred the present criminal revision petition.
Though notice has been duly served on the respondent/husband, he has remained unrepresented before this Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the petitioner and the respondent, as per their ranking before the Family Court.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner married the respondent on 20.04.1992. After their marriage, they lived together for about five years. No children were born out of their wedlock. It is the case of the petitioner that, during their matrimonial life, the respondent and his family members subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty. The respondent used to assault her and, being unable to tolerate the harassment, she left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents.
The petitioner was waiting until the year 2015, with the hope that the respondent would mend his ways and take her back to the matrimonial home. However, in December 2015, she came to know that the respondent had married another woman. When she questioned him in that regard, he admitted that he had married the said woman in the year 1997 itself.
Having no other alternative, the petitioner continued to reside with her parents. It is further contended that, until the year 2018, the respondent used to visit her and pay certain amounts towards her maintenance. He had also assured her that he would make arrangements for her maintenance during her lifetime.
However, thereafter, the respondent stopped visiting the petitioner and also discontinued paying any amount towards her maintenance. It is further contended that the respondent is working in HESCOM and earning a salary of ₹80,000/- per month. He also owned agricultural land, which was acquired for the Upper Krishna Project, and received compensation of ₹6,25,000/- towards such acquisition.
It is the further case of the petitioner that, despite the respondent having sufficient means and being financially well placed, he neglected and refused to maintain her. Hence, she was constrained to file a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in Criminal Miscellaneous No.29/2021 before the Family Court, seeking an award of maintenance.
In response to the notice issued by the Family Court, the respondent appeared and filed his statement of objections, denying the allegations made in the petition, including the allegations of harassment and cruelty.
The specific contention of the respondent before the Family Court was that the petitioner had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and, thereafter, in the presence of witnesses, had executed a document styled as a 'Bidugade Patra', under which she had received a sum of ₹10,000/- as a one-time settlement towards permanent alimony.
It was further contended that the petitioner had assured him that she would give her consent for his second marriage and would not initiate any legal proceedings in that regard. It was therefore contended that, suppressing the aforesaid facts, the petitioner had filed the petition seeking maintenance.
The respondent further contended that the petitioner had been residing separately from him for the past 24 years and that he came to know that, at the instigation of her brother, she had instituted the proceedings seeking maintenance only after he received compensation of ₹6,50,000/- under the Upper Krishna Project. On these grounds, the respondent sought dismissal of the petition.
Before the Family Court, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and got marked four documents as Exs.P-1 to P-4. The respondent examined himself as RW-1 and got marked five documents as Exs.R-1 to R-5.
The Family Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., with costs of ₹1,000/-, by its judgment and order dated 27.09.2025.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner/wife has preferred the present criminal revision petition, challenging the findings recorded by the Family Court and seeking interference by this Court on the following grounds:
GROUNDS
a. The Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and erroneously placed reliance on the document styled as a 'Bidugade Patra', allegedly executed by the petitioner, to conclude that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home in the year 1997 and had thereafter been maintaining herself independently without receiving any maintenance from the respondent.
b. The Family Court proceeded to observe that the petitioner had not initiated any proceedings seeking maintenance since the year 1997 and had approached the Court only in the year 2021, after a lapse of nearly 24 years. On the ground of such delay, the Family Court disbelieved the case of the petitioner and dismissed her petition seeking maintenance.
c. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the year 1992 and that they lived together for about five years. Thereafter, the respondent subjected the petitioner to mental and physical cruelty. Unable to tolerate the same, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents.
d. The respondent used to visit the petitioner and pay certain amounts towards her maintenance until the year 2018. However, thereafter, he stopped visiting her and making payments towards her maintenance. When the petitioner enquired with the respondent, he admitted that he had married another woman in the year 1997 itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, prayed that the petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court.
Perused the records.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel Smt. Bindu Gangachari, appearing for the petitioner, and upon perusal of the records, the following point arises for consideration:
Whether the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot, suffers from any illegality, perversity or error warranting interference by this Court?
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the wife and the respondent is her husband. The specific contention of the petitioner is that, owing to the harassment meted out to her by the respondent and his family members, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home and start residing with her parents.
It is the further contention of the petitioner that, even after she started residing at her parental home, the respondent used to visit her and provide certain amounts towards her expenses and maintenance. According to her, the respondent continued to visit her and provide financial assistance until the year 2018. However, thereafter, he stopped visiting her and discontinued providing any financial assistance towards her maintenance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since the respondent was providing maintenance until the year 2018, the petitioner waited for some time with the expectation that he would continue to maintain her. However, when the respondent stopped providing financial assistance and failed to make any arrangements for her livelihood, she was constrained to approach the Family Court in the year 2021 by filing a petition seeking maintenance.
It is further contended that the learned Family Court committed an error in dismissing the petition on the ground that there was a delay of nearly 24 years in approaching the Court and that such delay disentitled the petitioner from claiming maintenance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, even assuming that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court seeking maintenance, such delay, by itself, would not disentitle her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. In support of the said contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.284/2025 dated 11.08.2026, wherein it has been observed as follows:
There is no period of limitation prescribed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C, which deals with the orders for maintenance of wives, children and parents, for filing a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Sections 125 to 128 of Cr.P.C. do not prescribe any limitation period for initiating proceedings seeking maintenance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent herein had instituted proceedings in O.S. No.4/2024 against the petitioner before the Family Court, Bagalkot, seeking dissolution of their marriage. However, the said suit came to be dismissed as not maintainable, holding that the respondent herein had no locus standi to institute the said proceedings, vide judgment dated 06.03.2026. It is further submitted that the respondent has not challenged the said judgment by preferring an appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent, being the husband of the petitioner, is legally bound to maintain her. It is also contended that the respondent has contracted a second marriage without obtaining a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner has no independent source of income to maintain herself. However, the Family Court, without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, erroneously dismissed the petition solely on the ground of delay in approaching the Court and on the reasoning that the petitioner had managed to sustain herself for all those years.
In the present case, it is relevant to note that, though notice has been duly served on the respondent, he has remained unrepresented before this Court.
On perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court, it is evident that the Family Court has primarily proceeded on the basis of the alleged execution of a document styled as a 'Bidugade Patra' and the fact that the petitioner approached the Court after a considerable lapse of time.
However, the mere fact that the petitioner approached the Court belatedly, by itself, cannot be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance, particularly when no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The question that requires consideration is whether the petitioner had sufficient reason for living separately and whether the respondent had neglected or refused to maintain her, despite having sufficient means to do so.
Further, the specific contention of the petitioner that the respondent was paying certain amounts towards her maintenance until the year 2018 and thereafter discontinued such payments requires due consideration. The Family Court has not properly appreciated this material aspect while considering the petitioner's claim for maintenance.
It is also relevant to note that the respondent has remained unrepresented before this Court, despite due service of notice. The material available on record indicates that the petitioner has been residing separately from the respondent and has sought maintenance on the ground that she has no independent source of income to maintain herself. These circumstances ought to have been considered by the Family Court while adjudicating the petition.
In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Family Court has committed an error in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set aside.
Insofar as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, instead of remanding the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration, this Court, having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the financial capacity of the respondent, who is stated to be receiving a monthly pension of ₹60,000/-, is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to determine the quantum of maintenance in the present proceedings itself.
Having regard to the financial status of the respondent, the circumstances of the petitioner and the material available on record, this Court considers it appropriate to award maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to the petitioner, payable by the respondent, from the date of filing of the petition before the Family Court.
On an overall consideration of the material available on record and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly with regard to the petitioner's entitlement to maintenance. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative and this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.29/2021, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No.29/2021 is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month.
The respondent is directed to pay maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition in Criminal Miscellaneous No.29/2021 before the Family Court, Bagalkot.
The arrears of maintenance shall be paid by the respondent in accordance with law.
The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Family Court.