- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1222 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100288 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: JAYAPRAKASH S/O VIRUPAKASHAPPA HURAKADLI, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. NIL R/O. OPP. TO SANGAMESHWAR TEMPLE, WARD NO.1, KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL -583229. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: RAJESHWARI W/O JAYAPRAKASH HURAKADLI, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O.NANDI NILAY, KUMBAR GALLI, SHAHAPUR, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADAGIRI, NOW RESIDING AT BHAVIKATTI PLOT NO.2, SHRINAGAR, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RAJESHWARI, PARTY IN PERSON) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.370/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.FAMILY COURT JUDGE, DHARWAD. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THERIN AS UNDER: VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.29 10:52:02 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1222 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.12.2023, by which the Court awards maintenance at Rs.7,000/-. 2. This Court owing to the submission of the learned counsel, grants an interim order of stay in terms of the order dated 05.04.2024. The said order reads as follows: “The petitioner calls in question order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.370 of 2022. The petitioner was before this Court calling in question an order passed in the very petition on the score that he was not heard in the matter. This Court remitted the matter back to the concerned Court to hear the parties and pass necessary orders. The result is the impugned order directing payment of maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent who appears in person. The respondent-in-person submits that the husband is in arrears close to Rs.1,35,000/-. Therefore, any consideration of grant of interim prayer will be only after the husband clears the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1222 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2024 maintenance to its last pie by the next date of hearing. List the matter on 25.04.2024.” 3. When no payment was made, this Court passed an order on 29.05.2024. The said order reads as follows: “This Court, on 05.04.2024 had passed the following order: “The petitioner calls in question order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.370 of 2022. The petitioner was before this Court calling in question an order passed in the very petition on the score that he was not heard in the matter. This Court remitted the matter back to the concerned Court to hear the parties and pass necessary orders. The result is the impugned order directing payment of maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent who appears in person. The respondent-in-person submits that the husband is in arrears close to Rs.1,35,000/-. Therefore, any consideration of grant of interim prayer will be only after the husband clears the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1222 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2024 maintenance to its last pie by the next date of hearing. List the matter on 25.04.2024.” The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the husband is not in a position to pay maintenance at Rs.7,000/- per month and seeks its reduction to Rs.5,000/-. This would be considered only after the petitioner considers payment of arrears to its last pie which is close to Rs.1,40,000/-. List this matter after two weeks. In the event the arrears are not cleared or bonafides are demonstrated by payment of 50% of the arrears to the respondent/wife, the petition would meet its dismissal.” 4. And again on 02.12.2024, noticing the fact that not even a rupee is paid as maintenance, this Court passed the following order: “This Court, on 29.05.2024, had passed the following order: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1222 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2024 “This Court, on 05.04.2024 had passed the following order: “The petitioner calls in question order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.370 of 2022. The petitioner was before this Court calling in question an order passed in the very petition on the score that he was not heard in the matter. This Court remitted the matter back to the concerned Court to hear the parties and pass necessary orders. The result is the impugned order directing payment of maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent who appears in person. The respondent-in-person submits that the husband is in arrears close to Rs.1,35,000/-. Therefore, any consideration of grant of interim prayer will be only after the husband clears the maintenance to its last pie by the next date of hearing. List the matter on 25.04.2024.” The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the husband is not in a position to pay maintenance at Rs.7,000/- per month and seeks its reduction to Rs.5,000/-. This would be considered only after the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1222 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2024 petitioner considers payment of arrears to its last pie which is close to Rs.1,40,000/-. List this matter after two weeks. In the event the arrears are not cleared or bonafides are demonstrated by payment of 50% of the arrears to the respondent/wife, the petition would meet its dismissal.” Respondent-in-person submits that not a rupee is paid of the arrears of Rs.1,40,000/- and would further submits that the arrears has grown upto Rs.3.00 lakhs. In that light, any interim protection stands vacated. Pendency of this petition will not come in the way of any Court passing any order, in accordance with law.” 5. Even today, the respondent who has appeared in person, submits that not a rupee has been paid as maintenance. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1222 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2024 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband has no money and has become bankrupt. It is seriously disputed by the respondent-husband. 7. Be that as it may, in the light of the orders quoted supra and there being blatantly violated, the petition does not merit any consideration. The petition is thus dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56