Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23238
RPFC No. 8 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.8 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHEELA DATLA
W/O AJAY VATSAVAI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. BABY ADITI VATSAVAI
D/O SRI. AJAY VATSAVAI
AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS
(MINOR, HENCE REPRESENTED BY
THE MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN)
PRESENT BOTH R/AT NO.306,
PHASE-1, METRO PALM GROVE
APARTMENTS, SOMAJIGUDA,
RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
HYDERABAD-500 082.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
B N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. ADITYA D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. AJAY VATSAVAI
S/O SRI. V RAMALINGA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEAERS
R/AT NO.402, USHOODAYA MAREVEL
APARTMENTS, GREEN GLEN LAYOUT,
BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
BENGALURU-560 103.
AND ALSO AT,
SRI. AJAY VATSAVAI
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23238
RPFC No. 8 of 2026
HC-KAR
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
TAVANT NMAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
32, C BLOCK, GRAPE GARDEN,
TH
17 H MAIN ROAD, KHB COLONY,
TH
6 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560 095.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H. MOHAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2024
PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.670/2023 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BNGALORE,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR NON PROSECUTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
ORAL ORDER
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of
II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in
Crl.Misc.No.670/2023, dated 19.12.2024, the petitioners
have filed this petition.
2. For convenience of reference, the parties herein
are referred to as per their rankings before this Court.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23238
RPFC No. 8 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. Petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.670/2023
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The
Family Court dismissed Crl.Misc.No.670/2023 for non-
prosecution at the stage of recording wife’s evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that petitioner No.1-wife is a homemaker and has never
been employed and the respondent-husband is gainfully
employed. The respondent-husband is receiving rent from
three apartments. The petitioners are dependent on her
old father, her brother, and her sister. It is submitted that
petitioner No.2 – minor child is in the care and custody of
the wife and she has been taking care of the child with the
help of her father. It is submitted that the husband is
unwilling to take care of the child and, till date, has not
asked about the child nor is concerned about the welfare
of the child.
5. It is further stated that the minor child need
nourishment, food, entertainment and education, which
are taken care by the wife and the husband has failed to
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23238
RPFC No. 8 of 2026
HC-KAR
provide all these basic amenities. Therefore, the wife has
to make financial arrangements for the aforesaid needs of
the minor child. It is submitted by the petitioners’ counsel
that it is difficult for the wife to bear the educational
expenses of the child alone and the husband has the
capacity to pay for all the expenses of both the petitioners.
For the above reasons, the wife approached the Family
Court seeking maintenance. But the Family Court
dismissed the Crl.Misc.No.670/2023 filed by the wife for
non-prosecution without hearing the case on merits.
6. Learned counsel for the wife relied on the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case
of Kehari Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another
reported in 2005 SCC Online All 1496, wherein it was
held as follows:
“The intention of the Legislature was to provide
eminent relief to most needy person as wife,
children and the parents as mentioned in Section
125 Cr. P.C. such persons are not able to maintain
themselves and are facing many problems and they
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23238
RPFC No. 8 of 2026
HC-KAR
are not earning persons. In such circumstances,
they are not in a proper position to pursue their
cases in the Court by affording the necessary
expenses. So, in such miserable conditions and due
to some unavoidable circumstances, they may not
be able to attend the Court proceedings on every
date fixed there to pursue their cases. In such a
situation, if it is held that the Court lacks the
jurisdiction to restore the case in absence of such
provision, the very object and purpose of
Legislature would be frustrated. The paramount
rule of interpretation which overrides the others is
that the Statute is to be expounded according to
the intent of think that made it. Therefore, if there
is any lacuna in the Statute, then also to oblige the
Magistrate judicially in order to give effect to the
will of the Legislature. Therefore, the learned
Magistrate is empowered to restore the proceedings
initiated under Section 125 Cr. P.C., which were
dismissed in non-appearance of the
complainant/applicant”.
7. Learned counsel for the husband denied the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and sought dismissal of the petition.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23238
RPFC No. 8 of 2026
HC-KAR
8. On hearing the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the impugned order
dated 19.12.2024 is hereby set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the Family Court for considering the
matter on merits.
9. In view of the same, the matter is remitted back
to the Family Court for fresh consideration and pass
appropriate order in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
i. Writ petition is disposed of .
ii. The order rendered by the Court of II Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in
Crl.Misc.No.670/2023 dated 19.12.2024 is set
aside.
iii. The matter is remanded back to the Family
Court to consider the same afresh and to pass
orders.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23238
RPFC No. 8 of 2026
HC-KAR
iv. Petitioners shall not seek any adjournments and
should cooperate with the Court in disposal of
the matter time bound.
v. Both parties are directed to appear either in
person or through their respective counsels
before the Family Court on 15.05.2026 without
further notice of this Court.
vi. Family Court giving opportunity to both the
parties to proceed with the matter and shall
dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible .
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
GSR,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37