<p> Dawalsab of Bijapur has been seeking Rs 5,000 a month (as prescribed by law) from his estranged son Khajasab, who is an employee of the Anjuman College, Sindhagi, for the last five years.<br /><br />During the intervening period, the district court and the Karnataka High Court could not decide on the jurisdiction of the court to hear the petition filed by Dawalsab.<br /><br />Orders set aside<br /><br />A Bench of Justices Altmas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph has allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders passed by both the family court and the High Court, directing the Bijapur family court to hear the matter afresh.”<br /><br />Both the learned Family Court judge and the High Court judge appear to have missed the fact that an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code has to be taken against any person in any district where the person is. In the instant case, Sindhagi also falls within Bijapur district,’’ the bench observed. <br /><br />The court has asked the son to pay Rs 25,000 to the father as litigation cost. But he will have to fight it out again from the lower court. <br /><br />If the son does not want to pay, it could take some more years to decide on the issue.<br />Dawalsab had moved the Bijapur family court in 2004 against his son under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), under which wives, children and parents can seek maintenance. <br /><br />Plea dismissed<br /><br />However, the Bijapur family court dismissed his plea in 2007, saying that he should have approached the magistrate court in Sindhagi since his son resided there. Dawalsab then moved the Karnataka High Court, which did not find any fault with the family court's decision. But the Supreme Court has set aside the High Court order directing Dawalsab to approach the Bijapur family court for the relief.</p>
<p> Dawalsab of Bijapur has been seeking Rs 5,000 a month (as prescribed by law) from his estranged son Khajasab, who is an employee of the Anjuman College, Sindhagi, for the last five years.<br /><br />During the intervening period, the district court and the Karnataka High Court could not decide on the jurisdiction of the court to hear the petition filed by Dawalsab.<br /><br />Orders set aside<br /><br />A Bench of Justices Altmas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph has allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders passed by both the family court and the High Court, directing the Bijapur family court to hear the matter afresh.”<br /><br />Both the learned Family Court judge and the High Court judge appear to have missed the fact that an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code has to be taken against any person in any district where the person is. In the instant case, Sindhagi also falls within Bijapur district,’’ the bench observed. <br /><br />The court has asked the son to pay Rs 25,000 to the father as litigation cost. But he will have to fight it out again from the lower court. <br /><br />If the son does not want to pay, it could take some more years to decide on the issue.<br />Dawalsab had moved the Bijapur family court in 2004 against his son under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), under which wives, children and parents can seek maintenance. <br /><br />Plea dismissed<br /><br />However, the Bijapur family court dismissed his plea in 2007, saying that he should have approached the magistrate court in Sindhagi since his son resided there. Dawalsab then moved the Karnataka High Court, which did not find any fault with the family court's decision. But the Supreme Court has set aside the High Court order directing Dawalsab to approach the Bijapur family court for the relief.</p>
