SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O YAMANAPPA MELINAMANI vs SMT. MAHANANDA W/O SHIVAKUMAR MELINAMANI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025
R


CNR: KAHC020221802025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF AUGUST 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100189 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O. YAMANAPPA MELINAMANI,
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HEAD CONSTABLE,
KASABAPETH POLICE STATION,
OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VISHWANATH S.BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. MAHANANDA
W/O. SHIVAKUMAR MELINAMANI,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024.

2. LAXMIPATI S/O. SHIVAKUMAR MELINAMANI
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. BINDARGI ONI, OLD-HUBBALLI-580024.

3. SANTOSHKUMAR S/O. SHIVAKUMAR MELINAMANI,
AGE. 17 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. BINDARGI ONI, OLD-HUBBALLI-580024.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.CHETANA S.BIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE
HON’BLE TRIAL COURT; SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, HUBBALLI, IN CRL. MISC NO.406/2012 AND ETC.

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














Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



ORAL ORDER

Revision petitioner husband has filed this petition
under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
challenging the order dated 20.09.2025 in Crl.Misc. No.
406/2012 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Hubballi (for short ‘Family Court’) by allowing the
maintenance petition partly with costs.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as
they were before the Family Court for the sake of
convenience and clarity.

3. The petitioners have filed the Maintenance
petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., claiming
maintenance of ₹12,000/- per month from respondent.

4. The case of petitioners in nutshell is that
petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are sons
of respondent and marriage of petitioner No.1 and
respondent was solemnized on 22.04.1994 before Sri.
Manjunatheshwara Temple, Dharmasthala; after the

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



marriage, petitioner No.1 gave birth to a male child on
27.09.1999, which is named as Lakshmipathi (petitioner
NO.2). She has also given birth to another child on
23.12.2005 at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi. Said child by name
Sachin died on 01.10.2009 without tolerating the
harassment given by respondent. On 26.03.2008,
petitioner No.1 gave birth to third petitioner-Santhosh
Kumar at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi. Respondent is addicted
to bad vices and treated petitioners with utmost cruelty.
He is having illicit relationship with other women and thus,
completely neglected petitioners to maintain. Respondent
is working as Head Constable at Kasaba Pete Police
Station, Hubballi. Petitioner No.1 gave written complaints
to the higher officers of respondent wherever he was
working. But, respondent has not heeded for the advice.
Respondent is getting salary of ₹21,000/- and above per
month. Petitioners require at least ₹4,000/- p.m., for each
petitioner. Hence, claimed maintenance of ₹12,000/- p.m.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025





5. After filing the petition, respondent appeared
through his counsel and filed his objection statement
wherein he denied the marital relationship with petitioner
No.1 and parental relationship with petitioner Nos.2 and 3
completely. The petitioner No.1 has given complaint to the
higher authorities of respondent only to harass him and to
give problems to the respondent. Virtually, the petitioner
No.1 has filed maintenance petition in Crl.Misc.
Nos.94/1997 and 47/2000 before II Additional Civil Judge
and III JMFC Hubballi and they were dismissed on merits
on 30.06.2005. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Respondent further contended that petitioner
No.1 has also filed the petition for maintenance against
one Ramachandra Mariyappa, the police constable, before
the Family Court, tried charge in Crl.Misc.No.112/2000
and it was also dismissed on 21.04.2001. Petitioner No.1
has also filed complaint before old Hubballi Police Station,
which was registered in Crime No.170/2012, by making

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



allegation that the respondent assaulted her, threatened
on her life with dire consequences, and after investigation,
‘B’ report is filed in the said complaint. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.

7. After recording the evidence and hearing
arguments, initially, the Family Court dismissed the
maintenance petition on the ground that petitioners failed
to establish the marital relationship of petitioner No.1 with
respondent and parental relationship of petitioner Nos.2
and 3 with respondent. Against said dismissal order,
petitioners have filed RPFC No.100054/2015 which was
allowed in part and the matter was remanded back to the
Family Court for fresh disposal.

8. After such remand, again the Family Court
dismissed the petition by order dated 17.03.2023. The
said order was also under challenge before this Court in
RPFC No.100168/2023. Said Revision petition was also
allowed and matter was remanded back to the Family

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



Court for fresh disposal with an observation that strict
proof of marriage is not required to claim maintenance
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. After such remand, petitioner
examined two witnesses and marked some documents.

9. After hearing arguments of both sides, the
Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner
No.1 is the wife of respondent and petitioner No.3 is his
son and directed respondent to pay maintenance of
₹5,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and ₹3,000/- per
month to petitioner No.3 till he attains the age of
majority. Said Order is under challenge in this Revision
petition.

10. Learned counsel for revision petitioner Sri.
Vishwanath S. Bichagatti would submit that the present
petition is barred by the principles of res-judicata because
in the earlier petitions i.e., in Crl.Misc. No.94/1997
clubbed with Crl.Misc. No.47/2000 which was disposed on
merits, it is held that the marital relationship of petitioner

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



No.1 with respondent is not established and the
relationship of petitioner No.2 with respondent is also not
established. Said order became final and it was not
challenged by petitioner before any authority. Hence, it
amounts to res judicata and now again she cannot claim
that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent and
cannot claim maintenance from respondent. Thus,
petitioner No.3 also not entitled to claim maintenance.

11. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would
further submit that the date of marriage mentioned in
present petition and in earlier petition varies. Furthermore,
the same petitioner No.1 along with same petitioner No.2
has filed Crl.Misc. No.112/2000 before the Family Court,
Raichur contended that respondent-Ramachandra of said
case is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of
petitioner No.2. She has made serious allegations about
said respondent that he assaulted her, caused bleeding
injuries to her and in that regard she has lodged complaint
in Crime No.47/2000 on 14.07.2000 against said

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



Ramachandra. Hence, claimed maintenance from said
Ramachandra. After contest, said petition was dismissed
holding that petitioner No.1 failed to establish her marital
relationship with respondent-Ramachandra and Petitioner
No.2 failed to establish his parental relationship with
respondent. These facts establish that petitioner Nos.1 and
2 are claiming maintenance from respondent and also
from another person making the similar allegations that
present respondent and one Ramachandra as the husband
of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2. Thus,
petitioner No.1 is in the habit of filing petition one after
another against respondent and also against one
Ramachandra. She has made serious allegations against
Ramachandra under Sections 498-A, 324, 504 and 506
IPC and it is held that petitioners failed to prove their
relationship with respondent and finally the Family Court
has passed the order that relationship is established but it
is erroneous finding and requires interference by this
Court.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025




12. Learned counsel for respondents-wife and
children Smt. Chetana S. Biraj would submit that initial
finding in Crl. Misc.No.94/1997 and No.47/2000 cannot be
held as res judicata to decide the present petition. In this
regard, she places reliance on the judgment of High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the case of
Chanchlesh Singare Vs. Smt.Rashmi Singare in
Crl.Revision Petition No.6100/2019, wherein
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court was examined and held
that the subsequent petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
based on fresh cause of action or under changed
circumstances cannot be a bar as it is only summary
proceedings and thus, the principle of res judicata is not
applicable.

13. Learned counsel for respondent would further
submit that the petitioners have produced ample evidence
before the Family Court to establish the relationship of
petitioners with respondent. They have produced the birth
certificate of petitioner No.3, the marriage invitation card,

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



ration card, Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 and letter of
recommendations by the higher authorities of respondent
as per Ex.P.11 to the police hostel to admit Sachin, the
son of petitioner No.1 and respondent, who is no more.
Respondent himself in his cross-examination categorically
admitted that petitioners are his wife and children. He
would further admitted in the letter given by him to his
Department that he will not have second marriage until
disposal of this maintenance petition filed by petitioner
No.1 against him. Thus, indirectly he admitted the
relationship of petitioners with respondent. Considering
these aspects, the Family Court rightly allowed the
maintenance petition. Petitioner No.2 has already attained
the age of majority and he is working. Hence,
maintenance is not granted in his favour which is not
challenged by them. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the
revision petition.

14. From the above facts, the point that arises for
consideration is:

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



“Whether the revision petitioners establishes that
the finding of Family Court is perverse and not in
accordance with law and requires interference?”

15. Finding of this Court on above point is in
negative for the following:
REASONS
This is the third round of litigation in respect of same
Criminal Miscellaneous petition. In earlier two occasions,
the present petition for maintenance was dismissed which
was challenged in RPFC No.100054/2015 and RPFC
No.100168/2023 and both revision petitions were allowed
in part and remanded the matter to the Family Court for
fresh disposal. In both times, this Court has made an
observation and directed the Family Court to decide the
petition in accordance with Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Further,
there was clear observation that the strict proof of
marriage is not required to decide the maintenance
petition under section 125 Cr.P.C.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025




16. After passing these two revision petitions, the
maintenance petition was allowed, which is under
challenge in this case.

17. There are series of proceedings that has taken
place between petitioner Nos.1, 2 and respondent.

18. Earlier, the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 have filed
Crl.Misc.Nos.94/1997 and 47/2000 praying for
maintenance from respondent contending that respondent
is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner
No.2. However, those two petitions were clubbed together
and common order was passed wherein, it is held that
marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent was not
established and for that reason it is not established that
petitioner No.2 was the son of respondent and for these
reasons they said two petitions were dismissed. Against
said order, admittedly, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have not
challenged the said order and thus the said order became
final.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025




19. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner
vehemently submitted that it amounts to res judicata . It is
already established that petitioner No.1 is not the wife of
respondent. Hence, now she cannot claim maintenance
from respondent on the ground that she is his wife.

20. In this regard, the learned counsel for petitioner
places reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court, in the
case of Sunita & Anr. Vs. Vijay Pal @ Mohd. Sabir &
Anr. In Crl.R.P.No.161/2018 , wherein, at paragraph
No.18, it is held as follows:
“18. The doctrine of res judicata has evolved to
prevent multiplicity of litigation regarding the same
issues in question and puts an end to a finally
adjudicated issue ensuring finality in litigation. This
ensures abuse of process of law and disentitles a
litigant to access courts repeatedly agitating issues
which have become final between the parties after
being adjudicated on merits by a court of law. It is to
prevent infinitely harassing an opponent by filing
repetitive suits involving same cause of action or law.
The matter in question in present case has been
conclusively determined on merit. For seeking any

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



further relief in case of change in circumstances, the
petitioner has to take recourse to Section 127
Cr.P.C.”

21. In the aforesaid case, it was already held that
the petitioner No.1 was the wife of respondent, which was
subsequently challenged in subsequent proceedings. Under
those circumstances, the High Court of Delhi held as
above.

22. Learned counsel for respondent places reliance
on the judgment of a Madhya Pradesh High Court in the
case of Chanchlesh Singare cited supra .

23. In the aforesaid judgment, the Madhya Pradesh
High Court considered the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reen
V.Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and
Another, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 33 …….. and
examined those judgments and finally at paragraph No.13
held as follows:-

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



“ 13. With regard to first question, from the
aforesaid judicial precedents, it is evident that the
principle of res judicata does not apply to the
proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. In the case of
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.,
(2025) 2 SCC 49 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court again
reiterated that procedure under S. 125 CrPC is
summary one . It is well settled that principle of res
judicata is not applicable to summary
proceedings . A subsequent application under Section
125 CrPC is maintainable where it is founded on a
change in circumstances or a fresh cause of action.
Therefore, an application cannot be rejected at the
threshold merely because an earlier application was
dismissed for default, dismissed on merits, or rejected
on the ground that the wife was living separately
without sufficient cause. In every such case, the Court
is required to afford the parties an opportunity of
hearing, permit them to adduce evidence regarding
the subsequent change in circumstances, and
determine the maintainability and entitlement to
maintenance on the basis of the evidence so
recorded. Such determination cannot be made
without recording evidence.”

24. In the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs. The
State of Telangana and Anr., reported in (2025) 2 SCC

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



49, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary proceedings and thus
principle of res judicata is not applicable to summary
proceedings. A subsequent application under Section 125
of Cr.P.C., is maintainable if it is founded on change of
circumstance or on fresh cause of action.

25. In this regard, learned counsel for revision
petitioner would vehemently submit that there is no
change of circumstance in the present case on the point of
relationship of petitioner No.1 with respondent. Hence,
said judgment is helpful to him rather than respondent.
However, on perusal of the contention taken by both
sides, it is noted that at the time of filing the Crl.Misc. No.
94/1997, petitioner No.1 was not having any children.
However, she gave birth to petitioner No.2 during
pendency of said petition and thus she filed another
petition in Crl.Misc.No.47/2000 impleading petitioner No.2.
However, it was held in that petition that Petitioner No.1
failed to prove that she is the wife of respondent on the

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



ground that the birth certificate of petitioner No.2 was not
produced. Further, there was subsequent development
i.e., petitioner No.1 has filed one more petition against
one Ramachandra in Crl.Misc.No.112/2000 before Family
Court, Raichur and it was pending at the time of passing
said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.97/2000. But,
presently, said petition was disposed of and it was
dismissed on the ground that petitioner No.1 failed to
establish her relationship with said Ramachandra.

26. The deposition of petitioner No.1 in said case is
produced by respondent in this case as per Ex.R.2. In this
regard, in the cross-examination, a suggestion was put to
her that she has filed said Crl.Misc.No.112/2000 against
said Ramachandra and gave evidence in that case which is
denied by present petitioner No.1. Hence, mere production
of her alleged deposition in Crl.Misc.No.112/2000 before
Raichur Court is of no help to respondent to prove that
petitioner No.1 is the wife of said Ramachandra. Hence,

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



there is changed circumstance in filing the present
petition.

27. Furthermore, petitioner No.1 has given birth to
two more children; one is Sachin who was born in the year
2005 and died in the year 2009; another child is present
petitioner No.3-Santhoshkumar. She has produced the
birth certificates of said Sachin and petitioner No.3 in this
case. Thus, there are changed circumstances in the
present case and the Crl.Misc.No.112/2000 was disposed
before Family Court, Raichur and afterwards, petitioner
No.1 gave birth to petitioner No.3 and one Sachin.
Furthermore, Petitioner No.1 has given requisition to the
higher authorities of respondent to permit her to admit her
second son-Sachin to police hostel which was considered
and the higher authority of respondent has made
recommendation to the police hostel to give admission to
Sachin, which is evidenced by Ex.P.11. Furthermore, the
birth certificates of petitioner No.3 and said Sachin were
not challenged by respondent before any forum because in

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



these two documents, name of respondent is shown as the
father of those two. Respondent is aware about these
facts, but, he has not made any efforts to challenge the
same. He is not an illiterate person, but he is appointed as
police constable and worked as head Constable. Hence, he
is a worldly wise person; having good knowledge of legal
proceedings; intentionally he has not challenged those
documents. Further, in the cross-examination, the
respondent at paragraph No.2 has specifically deposed as
follows:
“1
£Éà CfðzÁgÀgÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DV ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ DUÀĪÀ
ªÀgÉUÀÆ £ÁªÀÅ ZÉ£ÁßV EzÉݪÀÅ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.”



28. Thus, there is clear admission that petitioner
No.1 is wife and other petitioners are his children.
Furthermore, he is paying interim maintenance to
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 as per the order passed in
Crl.Misc.No.406/2012. This fact is not disputed by him.

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025




29. Respondent has given declaration to his higher
authorities that he will not get second marriage. He has
given said declaration on 09.05.2012 as per Ex.P.45. In
that Ex.P45, respondent has given declaration to his
higher authorities that petitioner No.1 has filed petition for
maintenance; until its disposal, he would not get second
marriage. When he says so then there shall be first
marriage to petitioner. He has not said in said declaration
that who is his first wife. According to him, he married one
Shantha during 2012. But, said declaration was given in
the year 2005. So, in 2005 who was his first wife is not
deposed by him. Except petitioner No.1, no one is claiming
to be the wife of respondent. There are so many other
documents produced by petitioner to substantiate that she
lived with respondent and she gave birth to petitioner No.3
and one Sachin.

30. Petitioner No.1 has given complaint against
respondent that he assaulted her and caused bleeding
injuries to her. Based on said complaint, a case is

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025



registered against respondent and it was registered as CC
No.367/1998 before III JMFC., Nargunda. Initially,
respondent was convicted in said case. This fact is
admitted by respondent in his cross-examination. But, he
volunteered that he was acquitted in said case in the
appeal filed by him. But, judgment of said appeal is not
produced. Anyway, the said judgment and complaint
establishes that petitioner No.1 claims to be the wife of
respondent has filed said complaint.

31. All the above facts prima facie would reveal that
petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.3 is the son of
respondent. As discussed earlier, strict Proof of marriage
of petitioner with respondent No.1 is not required to be
established to claim maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C. Considering these aspects, ultimately the Family
Court came to the conclusion that petitioner Nos.1 and 3
are entitled for maintenance amount from respondent.

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13980
RPFC No. 100189 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020221802025




32. The Revision petitioner is not challenging the
quantum of maintenance in this petition. Hence, the
amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court in
favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 3 requires no interference.

33. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
i) Revision petition is dismissed .
ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are permitted to take
recourse of law to recover the entire arrears of
maintenance amount because immediately after allowing
the petition, present revision petition is filed and the
matter was stayed by the by this court in this case.
iii) In view of disposal of revision petition, interim
applications, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE

HMB
CT:VH
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3