- 1 -

RPFC No. 100043 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100043 OF 2020 (-)

BETWEEN:

1.

SANGEETA W/O BAPU LAMANI

AGE 29 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,

R/O C/O MEENAXI M RITTI,

CHITANYA NAGAR, DHARWAD,

PIN CODE-580008.

2.

KAVERI D/O BAPU LAMANI

AGE 10 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,

R/O C/O MEENAXI M RITTI,

CHITANYA NAGAR, DHARWAD,

PIN CODE 580008.

3.

LOKESH S/O BAPU LAMANI

AGE 8 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,

R/O C/O MEENAXI M RITTI,

CHITANYA NAGAR, DHARWAD,

PIN CODE 580008.

4.

KALPANA D/O BAPU LAMANI

AGE 6 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,

R/O C/O MEENAXI M RITTI,

CHITANYA NAGAR,

DHARWAD, PIN CODE 580008.

PETITIONER NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINOR

R

- 2 -

RPFC No. 100043 of 2020

CHILDREN R/BY THEIR NATURAL

MOTHER AS GUARDIAN.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PAVITRA N. KAVALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BAPU S/O SOMAPPA LAMANI

AGE 30 YEARS, OCC DRIVER LORRY TIPPER,

R/O SEVALAPUR, SHIRABADAGI TANDA,

TQ SAVANUR, DIST HAVERI,

PIN CODE 580008.

…RESPONDENT

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC R/W

SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 5.11.2020, IN CRL.MISC.

NO.145/2020, ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD,

PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF

CR.P.C

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners in Crl. Misc.

No.145/2020 on the file of the Family Court, Dharwad,

challenging the order dated 05.11.2020 on the file of the

Family Court, Dharwad decline to accept the petition on

the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

- 3 -

RPFC No. 100043 of 2020

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Respondent is served.

3.

The Family court raised an objection with

regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground

that the address shown in the cause title and the

documents produced by the petitioners do not tally and

therefore, the office objection was accepted by the learned

Judge of the Family Court and returned the petition to the

petitioner for presentation of the same before the

jurisdictional Court.

4.

In this matter, though relevant documents have

not been produced by the petitioners to say that they are

residing at Dharwad, however, the petitioner has filed an

affidavit stating that, she is residing with her Aunt

Meenakshi Ritti’s House, at Dharwad. It has also come in

the finding of the Family Court that the said Meenakshi

Ritti is residing at Dharwad and therefore, the Family

Court ought to have given an opportunity to the

petitioners to have their say in the matter with regard to

- 4 -

RPFC No. 100043 of 2020

the proof of their residing in the house of their Aunt-

Meenakshi Ritti. Since the petition is filed under Section

125 of Cr.P.C. which is a summary proceedings, the same

requires immediate action by the Family court to

safeguard the destitute wife and children. In the case of

ABHILASH Vs. PARKASH, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4355,

the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, the purpose of summary

proceedings provided under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is to

provide immediate relief to the applicant. In the case of

DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATHY Vs. BIDYUT PRAVA DIXIT

AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court observed that the provision contained

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice

extended to protect wife and children and to prevent

vagrancy and destitution. It provides speedy remedy to

deserted women. It is also well established principle in

law that strict proof of marriage is