- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13041 CRL.P No. 3584 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3584 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MAHAMMED SAJEER @ SAJU. C. S. S/O SOMAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT SYIAMBA 73 COLONY, AMMARAKUNNI POST PULLALLI, VAINADU DISTRICT-673578 PRESENTLY R/AT MAHAMMAD SAJEER S/O SOMAN, C/O BINDU, W/O VIJIYAN, PULLAPALLI, CHEPALA COLONY, PULLAPALLI, KERALA STATE-673578 REAL NAME OF PETITIONER SAJU C.S @ SAAJU C S AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PULLAPALLI, CHEPALA COLONY, PULLAPALLI, KERALA STATE-673578 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMEER S N., ADV.) AND: 1. NAGEENA D/O G.YAKUB AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O THIMMA HOSAHALLI, (BYRANAKUPPE VILLAGE) ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI, HD KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114 2. FATHIMASHAYA D/O NAGEENA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E., NAGEENA-RESPONDENT NO.1 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O THIMMA HOSAHALLI, (BYRANAKUPPE VILLAGE) ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI, HD KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571114 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13041 CRL.P No. 3584 of 2025 (BY SRI.M.N.ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO a) SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 PASSED IN CRL.REVISION PETITION NO.166/2021 BY THE HONBLE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR. b) CONSEQUENTLY, SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.06.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.628/2013 BY THE HONBLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HD KOTE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Trial Court granting interim maintenance to Respondents No.1 and No.2, who are his alleged wife and acknowledged daughter, respectively. The Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to each of the respondents. The primary contention raised by the petitioner is that Respondent No.1 is not his legally wedded wife, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is without legal authority and is liable to be set aside. 2. However, the petitioner unequivocally admits that Respondent No.2 is his biological daughter. The main issue for consideration is whether a valid marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and Respondent No.1. 3. The Trial Court, after thoroughly appreciating the evidence placed on record, has made a categorical finding that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13041 CRL.P No. 3584 of 2025 Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Upon reappreciation of the evidence during the appeal, the learned Sessions Court has also arrived at the same conclusion, affirming the Trial Court’s finding that Respondent No.1 is indeed the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. 4. The concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the Sessions Court are based on proper evaluation of evidence, and there is no indication of perversity, arbitrariness, or misapplication of law. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any compelling grounds or legal infirmities that would warrant interference with the impugned order. 5. In view of the foregoing, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The orders of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court granting interim maintenance to Respondents No.1 and No.2 are upheld. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13