Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 17244
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J
Kumar Sunil S/O Laxman Chanaveer – Appellant
Versus
Shri. Laxman S/O Mallappa Chanaveer – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100057 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. N.L. Batakurki
For the Respondents: Sri. Santosh B. Mane
The court affirmed that summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. uphold a minor child's right to maintenance, relying on corroborative public documents to establish familial relationships.
Headnote:First Paragraph: This case involves a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to challenge the order of the Revisional Court dated 18/09/2019 that set aside a prior order granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to the petitioners. The Trial Court had found the petitioners entitled to maintenance based on their claims of neglect. Second Paragraph: The issues revolve around the legitimacy of the petitioner's relationship with the respondent and the scrutiny of the provided evidence. The core reasoning invoked underlines that a birth certificate (Ex.P2) substantiates the claim of the son being the respondent's child, thereby affirming his entitlement to maintenance. Last Paragraph: The order passed in Crl.RP No.40/2017 insofar as setting aside of the order passed in Crl.Misc.31/2014 as regards the first petitioner is set aside and the entitlement of maintenance to the first petitioner in Crl.Misc.31/2014 is upheld and order in Crl.Mis.31/2014 to such extent is affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioners' claim for maintenance based on familial relationship. (Para 1 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. trial court's findings regarding maintenance entitlement. (Para 7 , 8 , 14) |
| 3. revisional court's authority questioned on relationship proof. (Para 10 , 11 , 16) |
| 4. affirmation of maintenance amount for the first petitioner. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who claim to be the son and wife of the respondent, calling in question the validity of the order dated 18.09.2019 passed in Crl.RP No.40/2017 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, Sitting at Jamkhandi, whereby the order passed on Crl.Misc.31/2014 dated 31.01.2017 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., Jamkhandi, allowing the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granting Rs.2,000/- maintenance to the wife and Rs.1,000/- maintenance to the son, was set aside.
2. The parties are referred to by their ranks in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, a petition came to be filed by the wife and son seeking maintenance against the husband who was the respondent, claiming that they were neglected to be maintained by the husband.
4. The case that is made out by the respondent and evidence as well as objections is one of total denial.
5. The petitioners have led in evidence and got marked the documents in support of their case. The wife Ambawwa Laxman Chanaveer has led her evidence as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P11. The other witnesses deposed on behalf of the petitioners were PW.2-Gurupadappa Sidramappa Basaragi who was the local resident and PW.3- Appasab Sadashiva Malashetty who was the paternal uncle of the petitioner no.2.
6. The respondent has adduced oral evidence and got examined himself as RW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.
7. The petition came to be allowed by recording a finding and points for consideration which were framed as regards entitlement of maintenance to wife and son.
8. The learned Trial Judge has appreciated the evidence on record and observed that the petitioners were entitled to claim maintenance. At para 11, the learned Trial Judge has recorded a finding that petitioner no.1 was the minor son of the respondent. The documents that were marked in evidence which may be of relevance insofar as claim of maintenance is Ex.P2, which is the Birth Certificate issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, which would show the name of son of the respondent who was petitioner no.1. The Birth Certificate at Ex.P2 would also indicate the date of birth as 20.04.2013 and name of the father as Laxman Mallappa Chanaveera and the name of the mother as Ambakka. The other document that would be of relevance is Ex.P4 which is the Birth Certificate issued by the Primary Health Center, Gothe, Jamakhandi Taluk, Bagalkot District, which records that Ambakka, W/o L. Chanaveera had delivered a male baby on
20.04.2013. The said certificate is marked as Ex.P4.
9. It is this order which is taken upon in revision before the District and Sessions Court which allowed the petition filed by the respondent by reversing the finding given by the learned trial Judge as regards relationship of the petitioners with the respondent not having been proved.
10. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the finding of fact regarding relationship could not have been disturbed in exercise of revisional powers by the Revisional Court. It is further submitted that the documents including Ex.P2 and P4 are sufficient to record a finding as regards the relationship, at least as regards the first petitioner who is the son. Accordingly, it is submitted that the finding of the Revisional Court ought to be set aside.
11. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no finding in the proceedings emphatically regarding relationship between the petitioners and the respondent as regards the pr
