- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2117 CRL.RP No. 460 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.460 OF 2024 BETWEEN: ANJANMURTHY B AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O SRI BYLAPPA R/AT GOPALAPURA VILALGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI - 562 149 BENGALURU NORTH TALUK …PETITIONER (BY SMT. KUMARI SUNITHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NANJUNDARADHYA B G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VEENA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O ANJANAMURTHY B 2. HARISURYA A AGED ABOUT 09 YEARS, S/O ANJANAMURTHY B SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN - RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2117 CRL.RP No. 460 of 2024 1 & 2 ARE R/AT VISHVESHWARAPURA KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.N. ARVINDA NAVADA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.63/2022 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Having perused the material on record, it discloses that the Trial Court granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and 7,000/- in total, a sum of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2117 CRL.RP No. 460 of 2024 Rs.10,000/- in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein respectively in C.Misc.No.300/2018 and the said order was modified by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.63/2022 allowing the appeal in part and directed the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,000/- in total, Rs.7,000/- to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein respectively from the date of the order passed by the Trial Court till disposal of the petition. 3. This petition is filed before this Court against the orders of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court contending that the both the Courts committed an error in not considering the matter in a proper perspective when the petitioner clearly stated in his objection statement that he is working as a coolie and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and also he is bearing educational expenses of respondent No.2 but both the Courts ignored the said fact and directed to pay huge maintenance. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is no need of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2117 CRL.RP No. 460 of 2024 payment of monthly maintenance against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner has produced the document in this regard and hence, both the Courts have committed an error. 4. The counsel for the respondents would vehemently contend that the order passed by the Trial Court is only an interim order of maintenance. Even though the Trial Court granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to both the respondents, the First Appellate Court reduced the same to Rs.7,000/- per month. The counsel would vehemently contend that even the said amount is also not paid and there are arrears. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the material on record, it discloses that the Trial Court has awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the respondents and the First Appellate Court reduced the same to Rs.7,000/- per month when the contention was taken that the petitioner is a coolie. But the fact that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2117 CRL.RP No. 460 of 2024 respondent No.2 is a minor aged about nine years represented by natural guardian mother and pursuing his education. When such being the case, the Trial Court granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the First Appellate Court already exercised its discretion reducing the same to Rs.7,000/- per month holding that the Trial Court has to take note of the status of the parties as well as the income of the petitioner herein and decide the matter on merits. It is also the contention that the respondent is an practicing advocate who is getting income of Rs.3,000/- per month but to support the same, he has not produced any documents before the Court. When the respondent is an advocate by profession, then the quantum of maintenance has to be decided on the basis of the status and the said observation is made by the First Appellate Court. This Court also found that the matter has to be decided on merits by the Trial Court and how much maintenance the respondents are entitled, the Trial Court has to take note of the status of both the parties and also take note of the fact that whether respondent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2117 CRL.RP No. 460 of 2024 No.1 is also earning and all these aspects requires trial before the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error in the order of the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court already modified the order. When such being the case, let the Trial Court decide the matter on merits. Since the petition is of the year 2018, time bound direction can be given to the Trial Court to consider the matter on merits. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order since the matter is of the year 2018. The learned counsel for the respective parties are directed to assist the Trial Court to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2117 CRL.RP No. 460 of 2024 dispose of the matter within a time bound period of six months. Registry is directed to communicate this order and send the records to the Trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN