The duty of the husband/father to provide maintenance, the entitlement of children for maintenance, and the social justice aspect of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

ORDER :

This Revision petition is filed by the respondent in C.Misc.No.247 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Davanagere, challenging the order dated 01st April, 2022, allowing the petition in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition are referred to with their status and rank before the Family Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the respondent-husband about sixteen years back and in their wedlock two children are born and they have been arraigned as petitioners 2 and 3 in the claim petition. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioners were subjected to cruelty as the respondent was not taking care of the needs of the petitioners and the respondent-husband contracted marriage with another woman and accordingly, petitioners left matrimonial home. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 has lodged complaint against the respondent-husband has also before Channagiri Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No.59 of 2017 and is pending consideration before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Davanagere in SC No.166 of 2016 and accordingly, petitioners have filed C.Misc.No.247 of 2017 on the file of Family Court, seeking maintenance.

4. On service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed objection, however, admits the relationship between himself with the petitioner No.1-wife. It is the specific defence of the respondent-husband that the petitioners left the matrimonial home voluntarily and therefore, petitioners are not entitled for maintenance and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. In order to establish their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and produced 26 documents as Exhibits P1 to P26. On the other hand, Respondent-husband was examined as RW1 and marked one document as Exhibit R1. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 01st April, 2022, allowed the petition in part and as such, directed the respondent-husband to pay the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month each to petitioners 2 and 3-children. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has preferred this Revision Petition.

6. Heard Sri Satyanand B.S., learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri R. Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. Sri Satyananda B.S., learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the procedure contemplated under Section 126 of Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed by the Family Court while recording the evidence of parties. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of SOMASHEKARAVH v. SMT. PARVATHAMMA reported in ILR 2019 KAR. 2614. He further contended that the language employed in Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to be given effect to, whereby the unmarried daughters who have attained majority and not suffering from any physical or mental injury, are not entitled for maintenance. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ABHILASHA v. PARKASH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2020 SC 4355. He further argued that as on the date of filing of the petition before the Family Court, petitioners 2 and 3 were majors and therefore, they cannot claim maintenance from the respondent and as such, sought for interference of this Court.

8. Per contra, Sri Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (petitioners before the family Court), made available the copy of the SSLC Marks cards issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board to substantiate the proof of age of petitioners 2 and 3 and submitted that, as on the date of filing of the petition before the Family Court, the age of petitioner No.2 was 17 and the petitioner No.3 was aged 14 years and further, he made available the certifie