- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4203 CRL.P No. 2790 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2790 OF 2021 BETWEEN: GANESH KUMAR, S/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, CHIKKA THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE, RAILWAY POLICE, BANGALORE-560 099. …PETITIONER (BY SRI DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: HEMAVATHI, W/O SHRI GANESH KUMAR, R/AT NO.11, KAGALIPURA, NEAR FOREST OFFICE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 082. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MADHU GOUD P.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.K LOKESHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRL.MISC.C.NO.514/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ACJM, BANGALORE RURAL COURT DATED 08.09.2020. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4203 CRL.P No. 2790 of 2021 ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the husband of the respondent filed this petition seeking to set aside the order dated 08.09.2020 passed in Crl.Misc.No.514/2019 on the file of the learned II Additional CJM, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent being the wife filed Crl.Misc.No.22/2013 against the husband claiming maintenance and other protection order under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said petition came to be allowed vide order dated 30.06.2015 directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner had not paid the maintenance as directed. Even though the said order was challenged before this Court by preferring Crl.RP.No.826/2017, the same came to be dismissed. Since the petitioner had not paid the maintenance as ordered by the trial Court, the respondent moved the trial Court for recovery of the amount in Crl.Misc.No.514/2019. The learned Magistrate passed the order dated 08.09.2020 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4203 CRL.P No. 2790 of 2021 issuing warrant attaching the salary of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. No representation. He has not addressed his arguments in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence, his arguments is taken as 'NIL'. Learned counsel for the respondent even though present, he is not aware of the facts of the case. Perused the materials on record. 4. On going through the materials on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4203 CRL.P No. 2790 of 2021 R E A S O N S 5. The materials on record discloses that the petitioner being the husband suffered an order to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- passed by the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.22/2013 under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Even though the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court by filing Crl.RP.No.826/2017, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the order granting maintenance of Rs.7,000/- has reached finality. 6. It is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has not paid the maintenance and arrears and therefore, an application was filed before the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.514/2019. Being satisfied with the ground made out, trial Court passed the impugned order dated 08.09.2020 issuing warrant for attachment of the salary of the petitioner, which is impugned herein. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4203 CRL.P No. 2790 of 2021 7. As per the grounds made out in the petition, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.2,78,500/- to the respondent even though only an amount of Rs.2,66,000/- was due and therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. But no materials are placed to substantiate the contention that the petitioner has paid Rs.2,78,500/- and thus, he has paid upto date maintenance as ordered by the Trial Court. According to learned counsel for respondent, lakhs of rupees is due to be paid and nothing is being paid to the respondent. When admittedly the order granting maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month which was challenged before this Court by dismissing the Crl.RP.No.826/2017, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition, that too, when there is absolutely no supporting materials to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4203 CRL.P No. 2790 of 2021 ORDER The petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has deposited some portion of maintenance amount before the Registry. Office to verify the same. If the amount in deposit, Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the respondent on due identification. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14