Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a revision petition filed by the husband under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi in Crl.Misc. No.406/2012, which partly allowed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The wife and two sons had originally claimed maintenance of Rs.12,000 per month from the husband, who was working as a Head Constable. The Family Court after a prolonged procedural history granted Rs.5,000 per month to the wife and Rs.3,000 per month to the minor son until he attained majority, while denying maintenance to the elder son who had attained majority and was working. The husband filed the revision contending that the Family Court order was perverse and barred by res judicata due to earlier dismissed maintenance proceedings. The High Court framed the point whether the finding was perverse and not in accordance with law and answered it in the negative. The reasons indicated that this was the third round of litigation, with two earlier remands to the Family Court. The earlier revisional orders had expressly observed that strict proof of marriage is not required to decide a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court after the second remand recorded evidence and found that the wife and minor son had established their relationship with the husband by producing birth certificate, marriage invitation card, ration card, Aadhar card, and relying on admissions in cross-examination. The husband argued that earlier dismissal in Crl.Misc. Nos.94/1997 and 47/2000 constituted res judicata, but the wife relied on a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision holding that the principle of res judicata is not applicable to summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC where there is a fresh cause of action or changed circumstances. The High Court observed that the Family Court's finding of relationship was based on evidence and not perverse. The final operative direction was not fully set out in the provided text, but the court's finding that the point was in the negative indicated that the revision petition did not succeed and the maintenance award was upheld.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC - Strict proof of marriage not required in summary maintenance proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - The Family Court after remand considered oral and documentary evidence including birth certificate, marriage invitation card, ration card, Aadhar card, and admissions in cross-examination and held that petitioner No.1 was the wife and petitioner No.3 was the son of respondent. Earlier revision remands had directed that strict proof of marriage is not required to decide a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC. The High Court found that the Family Court applied the correct legal standard and its finding on relationship was not perverse. Held that no interference was required in revision (Paras 8-9, 13, 15-16). B) Criminal Procedure - Res Judicata and Maintenance Proceedings - Principle of res judicata not strictly applicable to summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC where fresh cause of action or changed circumstances exists - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - Revision petitioner contended that earlier dismissal of maintenance petitions in Crl.Misc. Nos.94/1997 and 47/2000 operated as res judicata. Respondents relied on Chanchlesh Singare v. Smt. Rashmi Singare, wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a subsequent Section 125 CrPC petition based on fresh cause of action or changed circumstances cannot be barred because the proceedings are summary. The High Court considered the revisional history and the repeated remands and did not find the Family Court's decision to be perverse. Held that the plea of res judicata did not warrant setting aside the maintenance order (Paras 10-15, 18-20). C) Revision - Scope of Interference under Section 19(4) Family Courts Act, 1984 - High Court can interfere only when finding is perverse or illegal - Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19(4) - The revision challenged the Family Court order dated 20.09.2025 in Crl.Misc. No.406/2012 allowing maintenance. The High Court framed the point whether the finding was perverse and contrary to law and answered it in the negative. The evidence on record supported the Family Court's conclusion that petitioner No.1 was the wife and petitioner No.3 was the son; petitioner No.2 had attained majority and was not granted maintenance. Held that the Family Court order did not suffer from perversity and did not require interference (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision petitioner established that the Family Court's finding was perverse and not in accordance with law and required interference.
Final Decision
The High Court framed the point whether the Family Court finding was perverse and not in accordance with law and answered it in the negative. The available reasons indicate that the revision petition did not succeed and the maintenance award of Rs.5,000 per month to the wife and Rs.3,000 per month to the minor son was upheld.
Law Points
- Strict proof of marriage is not required for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- doctrine of res judicata is not strictly applicable to summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC where there is fresh cause of action or changed circumstances
- High Court in revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act
- 1984 interferes only if the Family Court finding is perverse or contrary to law.
