Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/1388/2026 of CHINNI PRAKASH @ CHINNAPPA Vs VIJAYA KUMARI @ VIJAYALAKSHMI on 29 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010604252026 NC: 2026:KHC:53923 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1388 OF 2026 BETWEEN: CHINNI PRAKASH @ CHINNAPPA, S/O. LATE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1388 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
CHINNI PRAKASH @ CHINNAPPA,
S/O. LATE PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/A. NO.811, 1ST 'B' CROSS,
L.N. COLONY, GOKULA,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 022.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH E.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VIJAYA KUMARI @ VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O. CHINNI PRAKASH CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/A. NO.4, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, SRINIVASA COLONY,
DOUBLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 27.
RECENTLY SHIFTED TO UNKNOWN ADDRESS
HER TRIAL COURT ADVOCATE ADRESS,
P. BABY SINDHU,
(M)9972477639
EMAIL: pbabysinchu@ gmail.com,
CHAMPS LAW CHAMBER,
NO.46/1, 2ND FLOOR,
K B GEETHA
HC-KAR
NEXT TO FAMILY COURT,
K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S
438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE MAGISTRATE
IS ACTING CONTRARY TO LAW U/S 125(4) OF CR.P.C. WHEN
SHE IS DETERMINING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 125(1) OF
CR.P.C. i.e., I.A.NO.3 FILED BY RESPONDENT HEREIN AND
WHILE
PASSING
IMPUGNED
ORDERS
THERE
UPON
CONTAINING MATERIAL ERRORS THERE BY PERVERSION OF
JUSTICE WAS COMMITTED BY THE LOWER COURT IN FRONT
OF LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Sri. Sathish E.S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner has filed his written submissions regarding maintainability of the petition and also orally submit on this point.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that as per Section 7(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, the Judge of the Family Court, who is exercising powers under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. (Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.) is exercising powers only as Magistrate of First Class and not as
K B GEETHA
HC-KAR
the Judge of Family Court. In this regard, he also point out Section 10(2) of the Family Courts Act, wherein it is stated that subject to the other provisions of the Act and the Rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974) or the Rules made there under shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court and as per Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, there is no overriding effect in respect of the jurisdiction exercised by the Family Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and thus according to him, the order passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the Judge of the Family Court is an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class and thus Criminal Revision petition is maintainable.
3. On careful perusal of the aforesaid submissions and provisions i.e., Section 7(2)(a), Section 10(2), Section 20 of the Family Courts Act along with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, it is clear that the Judge of Family Court vested with Magistrate of First Class can follow the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. to deal with the cases filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C; but that does not mean that the
K B GEETHA
HC-KAR
Judge, who has passed the order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. of a Family Court is the Judicial Magistrate of First Class and Criminal Revision petition is maintainable in law.
4. Revision petition FC is maintainable against the order passed by the Judge of Family Court as per Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act and not the Criminal Revision petition as argued by the learned counsel for Revision petitioner. Hence this Court passes the following:
O R D E R
(i) The Revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the Revision petitioner to approach the proper forum by filing proper petition.
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE
JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
K B GEETHA