SMT MANJULA W/O RAMACHANDRA DANDAGI vs SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O VENKAPPA DANDAGI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100209 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SMT. MANJULA W/O RAMACHANDRA DANDAGI
AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TIMMAPUR, POST. MUDDAPUR,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT 587122.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARTIK GANACHARI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O VENKAPPA DANDAGI
AGED 59 YEARS, OCC. HESCOM SERVICE
R/O. KALADAGI BAGALKOT,
TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT 587101
…RESPONDENT
(SOLE RESPONDENT-HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED
27.09.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT,
BAGALKOTE IN CRI.MISC.NO.29/2021 AND AWARD MONTHLY
MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED BY PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE












ROHAN
HADIMANI
T
Digitally signed by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.11.05 16:40:17
+0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


ORAL ORDER


1. The petitioner/wife, being aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Family Court'), in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.29/2021, whereby the petition filed by
her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), came to be dismissed, has
preferred the present criminal revision petition.

2. Though notice has been duly served on the
respondent/husband, he has remained unrepresented
before this Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties
are referred to as the petitioner and the respondent, as
per their ranking before the Family Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1 The petitioner married the respondent on
20.04.1992. After their marriage, they lived together for
about five years. No children were born out of their
wedlock. It is the case of the petitioner that, during their

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


matrimonial life, the respondent and his family members
subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty. The
respondent used to assault her and, being unable to
tolerate the harassment, she left the matrimonial home
and started residing with her parents.

3.2 The petitioner was waiting until the year 2015,
with the hope that the respondent would mend his ways
and take her back to the matrimonial home. However, in
December 2015, she came to know that the respondent
had married another woman. When she questioned him in
that regard, he admitted that he had married the said
woman in the year 1997 itself.

3.3 Having no other alternative, the petitioner
continued to reside with her parents. It is further
contended that, until the year 2018, the respondent used
to visit her and pay certain amounts towards her
maintenance. He had also assured her that he would make
arrangements for her maintenance during her lifetime.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025



3.4 However, thereafter, the respondent stopped
visiting the petitioner and also discontinued paying any
amount towards her maintenance. It is further contended
that the respondent is working in HESCOM and earning a
salary of ₹80,000/- per month. He also owned agricultural
land, which was acquired for the Upper Krishna Project,
and received compensation of ₹6,25,000/- towards such
acquisition.

3.5 It is the further case of the petitioner that,
despite the respondent having sufficient means and being
financially well placed, he neglected and refused to
maintain her. Hence, she was constrained to file a petition
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.29/2021 before the Family Court, seeking an award of
maintenance.

4. In response to the notice issued by the Family
Court, the respondent appeared and filed his statement of
objections, denying the allegations made in the petition,
including the allegations of harassment and cruelty.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025



5. The specific contention of the respondent before
the Family Court was that the petitioner had voluntarily
left the matrimonial home and, thereafter, in the presence
of witnesses, had executed a document styled as a
'Bidugade Patra', under which she had received a sum of
₹10,000/- as a one-time settlement towards permanent
alimony.

5.1 It was further contended that the petitioner had
assured him that she would give her consent for his
second marriage and would not initiate any legal
proceedings in that regard. It was therefore contended
that, suppressing the aforesaid facts, the petitioner had
filed the petition seeking maintenance.

5.2 The respondent further contended that the
petitioner had been residing separately from him for the
past 24 years and that he came to know that, at the
instigation of her brother, she had instituted the
proceedings seeking maintenance only after he received
compensation of ₹6,50,000/- under the Upper Krishna

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


Project. On these grounds, the respondent sought
dismissal of the petition.

6. Before the Family Court, the petitioner
examined herself as PW-1 and got marked four documents
as Exs.P-1 to P-4. The respondent examined himself as
RW-1 and got marked five documents as Exs.R-1 to R-5.

7. The Family Court, after appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded
to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner under Section
125 of the Cr.P.C., with costs of ₹1,000/-, by its judgment
and order dated 27.09.2025.

8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
order, the petitioner/wife has preferred the present
criminal revision petition, challenging the findings recorded
by the Family Court and seeking interference by this Court
on the following grounds:
GROUNDS

a. The Family Court failed to properly appreciate
the evidence available on record and erroneously placed

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


reliance on the document styled as a 'Bidugade Patra',
allegedly executed by the petitioner, to conclude that she
had voluntarily left the matrimonial home in the year
1997 and had thereafter been maintaining herself
independently without receiving any maintenance from
the respondent.

b. The Family Court proceeded to observe that
the petitioner had not initiated any proceedings seeking
maintenance since the year 1997 and had approached the
Court only in the year 2021, after a lapse of nearly 24
years. On the ground of such delay, the Family Court
disbelieved the case of the petitioner and dismissed her
petition seeking maintenance.

c. The marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized in the year 1992 and that
they lived together for about five years. Thereafter, the
respondent subjected the petitioner to mental and
physical cruelty. Unable to tolerate the same, she was
constrained to leave the matrimonial home and reside
with her parents.

d. The respondent used to visit the petitioner and
pay certain amounts towards her maintenance until the
year 2018. However, thereafter, he stopped visiting her
and making payments towards her maintenance. When
the petitioner enquired with the respondent, he admitted

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


that he had married another woman in the year 1997
itself.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating
the grounds urged in the revision petition, prayed that the
petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Family Court.

10. Perused the records.

11. Having heard the submissions of learned
counsel Smt. Bindu Gangachari, appearing for the
petitioner, and upon perusal of the records, the following
point arises for consideration:
Whether the impugned judgment and order
dated 27.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot, suffers from any
illegality, perversity or error warranting interference
by this Court?

12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the wife
and the respondent is her husband. The specific contention
of the petitioner is that, owing to the harassment meted
out to her by the respondent and his family members, she

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


was constrained to leave the matrimonial home and start
residing with her parents.

13. It is the further contention of the petitioner
that, even after she started residing at her parental home,
the respondent used to visit her and provide certain
amounts towards her expenses and maintenance.
According to her, the respondent continued to visit her and
provide financial assistance until the year 2018. However,
thereafter, he stopped visiting her and discontinued
providing any financial assistance towards her
maintenance.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, since the respondent was providing maintenance
until the year 2018, the petitioner waited for some time
with the expectation that he would continue to maintain
her. However, when the respondent stopped providing
financial assistance and failed to make any arrangements
for her livelihood, she was constrained to approach the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


Family Court in the year 2021 by filing a petition seeking
maintenance.

15. It is further contended that the learned Family
Court committed an error in dismissing the petition on the
ground that there was a delay of nearly 24 years in
approaching the Court and that such delay disentitled the
petitioner from claiming maintenance.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that, even assuming that there was a delay on
the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court seeking
maintenance, such delay, by itself, would not disentitle her
from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. In support of the said contention, learned counsel
placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate
Criminal Revision Petition
Bench of this Court in
No.284/2025 dated 11.08.2026 , wherein it has been
observed as follows:
There is no period of limitation prescribed under
Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C, which deals with the orders

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


for maintenance of wives, children and parents, for
filing a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Sections
125 to 128 of Cr.P.C. do not prescribe any limitation
period for initiating proceedings seeking maintenance.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the respondent herein had instituted
proceedings in O.S. No.4/2024 against the petitioner
before the Family Court, Bagalkot, seeking dissolution of
their marriage. However, the said suit came to be
dismissed as not maintainable, holding that the
locus standi
respondent herein had no to institute the said
proceedings, vide judgment dated 06.03.2026. It is further
submitted that the respondent has not challenged the said
judgment by preferring an appeal.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contended that the respondent, being the husband of the
petitioner, is legally bound to maintain her. It is also
contended that the respondent has contracted a second
marriage without obtaining a decree of divorce dissolving
his marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner has no

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


independent source of income to maintain herself.
However, the Family Court, without properly appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence available on record,
erroneously dismissed the petition solely on the ground of
delay in approaching the Court and on the reasoning that
the petitioner had managed to sustain herself for all those
years.

19. In the present case, it is relevant to note that,
though notice has been duly served on the respondent, he
has remained unrepresented before this Court.

20. On perusal of the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Family Court, it is evident that the
Family Court has primarily proceeded on the basis of the
alleged execution of a document styled as a 'Bidugade
Patra' and the fact that the petitioner approached the
Court after a considerable lapse of time.

21. However, the mere fact that the petitioner
approached the Court belatedly, by itself, cannot be a
ground to reject her claim for maintenance, particularly

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


when no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a
petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The question that
requires consideration is whether the petitioner had
sufficient reason for living separately and whether the
respondent had neglected or refused to maintain her,
despite having sufficient means to do so.

22. Further, the specific contention of the
petitioner that the respondent was paying certain amounts
towards her maintenance until the year 2018 and
thereafter discontinued such payments requires due
consideration. The Family Court has not properly
appreciated this material aspect while considering the
petitioner's claim for maintenance.

23. It is also relevant to note that the respondent
has remained unrepresented before this Court, despite due
service of notice. The material available on record
indicates that the petitioner has been residing separately
from the respondent and has sought maintenance on the
ground that she has no independent source of income to

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


maintain herself. These circumstances ought to have been
considered by the Family Court while adjudicating the
petition.

24. In the circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Family Court has committed
an error in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner
seeking maintenance. Consequently, the impugned
judgment and order are liable to be set aside.

25. Insofar as the quantum of maintenance is
concerned, instead of remanding the matter to the Family
Court for fresh consideration, this Court, having regard to
the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding the financial capacity of the
respondent, who is stated to be receiving a monthly
pension of ₹60,000/-, is of the opinion that it would be
appropriate to determine the quantum of maintenance in
the present proceedings itself.

26. Having regard to the financial status of the
respondent, the circumstances of the petitioner and the

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


material available on record, this Court considers it
appropriate to award maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month
to the petitioner, payable by the respondent, from the
date of filing of the petition before the Family Court.

27. On an overall consideration of the material
available on record and the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Family Court has failed to properly
appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, particularly with regard to the petitioner's
entitlement to maintenance. Consequently, the impugned
judgment and order warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

28. Accordingly, the point for consideration is
answered in the affirmative and this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is allowed .

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


The impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2025
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bagalkot, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.29/2021,
dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section
125 of the Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.29/2021 is allowed. The
petitioner is held entitled to maintenance at the rate of
₹10,000/- per month.
The respondent is directed to pay maintenance of
₹10,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of
filing of the petition in Criminal Miscellaneous No.29/2021
before the Family Court, Bagalkot.
The arrears of maintenance shall be paid by the
respondent in accordance with law.

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18083
RPFC No. 100209 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020251532025


The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court
records along with a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Family Court.


Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE

AC
Ct-cmu
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26