- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13581 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6463 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT MANJULA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O.C.CHINNASWAMY, R/O.SANJEEVANAGARA, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C. P. DHARANJAYA .,ADVOCATE) AND: C CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O CHELUVAIAH, R/O.SANJEEVANAGAR, SANJEEVANAGAR POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO SET ASIDE TE ORDER DATED 06.08.2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.RP.NO.5007/2018 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13581 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER The petitioner/wife is aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Court, modifying the maintenance of Rs.3,500/- awarded by the learned Magistrate and reducing it to Rs.2,500/-. 2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. 3. Petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/wife seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- was partly allowed by the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 30.01.2018. Respondent/husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to the petitioner from the date of petition. The challenge made to the said order by way of revision petition by the respondent/husband was allowed in part by the learned Sessions Judge and the maintenance award was modified and reduced from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.2,500/-. 4. Admittedly, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not challenged by the respondent/husband. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13581 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2019 learned Magistrate after examining the entire facts and circumstances and also based on the documents adduced, awarded a just sum and therefore, the Revisional court was not justified in modifying the maintenance amount. 5. The learned Sessions Judge while reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.3500/- to Rs.2500/- has observed that the petitioner has studied PUC and according to her she was also working and therefore, she can do work and earn money. It is further observed that, as admitted by the respondent, examined as RW.1, he is a BA graduate and residing in separate house since 4-5 years and he is doing coolie work and the maintenance of Rs.5000/- sought for livelihood of the petitioner may not be required for maintenance of single person. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that since December, 2001, petitioner was residing separately from her husband and it is nowhere stated as to for what reasons she left his house. Further, several panchayaths were held, but she was not ready to lead her life with the respondent. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13581 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2019 7. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner/wife before the Trial Court was that the respondent has contracted second marriage and leading a marital life with second wife. The learned Magistrate, however, concentrated on the claim made by the petitioner for maintenance, observing that it is not necessary to go into those allegations, rightly observing that the scope of enquiry and adjudication is limited to ascertain whether the wife was entitled to maintenance from her husband. 8. It is no doubt that the petitioner studied up to PUC. However, it is also not disputed that the respondent is a BA graduate. The contention was raised that the petitioner is working as a teacher in a school and earning some income. However, respondent has failed to prove the same. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner married the respondent and the couple lived together only for a short span of time and thereafter, dispute arose between them and they started living separately. The respondent has a bounden duty to maintain the petitioner, as it was established that she was unable to maintain herself and there was no fault on her part in living separately. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13581 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2019 9. The maintenance amount claimed was Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Magistrate thought it fit to award a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month. The order passed by the Revisional Court modifying the said order and awarding a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance has not been challenged by the respondent/husband. This Court is of the considered view that the order of maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month awarded by the learned Magistrate is just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the present situation, the said amount cannot be said to be on the higher side or unreasonable. The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge to modify the maintenance amount and the consequent order has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, the following:- ORDER i) Petition is allowed ii) The impugned order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Bhadravathi in Crl.Rev.P.No.5007/2018 is hereby set aside. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13581 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2019 iii) The order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Court of the IV Additional Civil Judge JMFC, Bhadravathi in Crl.Misc.No.116/2011 is confirmed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11