B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

1. Though this revision petition is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.

2. The petitioner herein has filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the dismissal of Criminal Miscellaneous No.80/2014, by the Family Court at Gulbarga, by order dated 06.08.2016. The same was filed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (Cr.P.C.).

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent herein is stated to be the father of the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, the respondent was married to her mother Kallamma about 19 years ago. Out of the said wedlock the petitioner was born on 12.10.1997. That petitioner's parents are residing separately for last decade or so. The petitioner is staying along with her mother's sister, Gouramma in Khandal village, she has studied upto 10th standard. Being a minor, the petition was presented through her aunt, Gouramma. Petitioner sought maintenance from the respondent her father, as according to the petitioner she has been deserted by both her parents as they have married or living with some other person and she is residing with her aunt and is having no source of maintenance. She has contended that the respondent is an agriculturist residing at Marthur village in Chincholi Taluk. He has about 3 acres 6 guntas of land and also has other income. That, the respondent is living with a lady by name Shabamma. It is not known whether the respondent has married her. In the circumstances, petitioner has sought maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

4. In response to the petition filed by the petitioner herein before the family court, the respondent appeared and filed objections. Respondent did not admit that he was married to the mother of the petitioner or that the petitioner was born on 12.10.1997. While denying the other averments of the petition, respondent contended that he has married Kallavva on 01.06.1997, at Sri Kashi Viswanath Temple at Marthur village. The petitioner was born on 12.10.1997. The petitioner was not born to the respondent out of wedlock of the respondent with petitioner's mother as she was born only four months after the marriage. Shortly thereafter, Kallavva left for Bangalore without informing the respondent. He went in search of her and found Kallavva has married one Kitty of Bangalore and she had begotten two children. That, Kallavva is not the wife of respondent and petitioner is not born to the respondent. Hence, according to the respondent, the question of paying maintenance does not arise. It is further averred that the respondent is uneducated and he is eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work at the rate of Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- per day. That he does not have any landed or house property. That the petition is not maintainable and the same has been filed to harass the respondent. Therefore, respondent sought dismissal of the petition.

5. In support of her case, petitioner examined her guardian as PW.1 and produced eight documents, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-8. Respondent examined himself as DW.1 and one more witness was examined as DW.2 and respondent produced one document marked as Ex.D-1.

6. On the basis of evidence on record, the family court raised the following points for its consideration:

1. Whether petitioner proves that respondent has neglected to maintain the petitioner in spite of having sufficient means?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled for maintenance? If so, what is the quantum?

7. The family court answered both the points in negative and dismissed the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek her remedy of maintenance after she attains majority. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, petitioner before the family court has preferred this revision petition.

8. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the material on record.

9. Petitioner's counsel su