- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4797 CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1401 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. ABDUL SAMAD HUSSAIN, S/O THOKUR HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SALAMATH, MOODUPERAR POST, KINNIKAMBALA VIA, BAJPE, MANGALURU-575 234, D.K.- DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. FATHIMA SNEHA @ SNEHA MOHAMMED, D/O PANAMBURU MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT R.R.MILL COMPOUND, SHASHITULU ROAD, MUKKA, SURATHKAL, MANGALURU-575 234. D.K. DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMED ZAIN HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL SAMAD HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MRS. FATHIMA SNEHA @ SNEHA MOHAMMED, D/O PANAMBURU MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT R.R. MILL COMPOUND, SHASHITULU ROAD, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4797 CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2019 MUKKA, SURATHKAL, MANGALURU -575 234, D.K.DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.106/2014 DATED 02.05.2017 PASSED BY JMFC III COURT, MANGALURU D.K. AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.103/2017 DATED 04.06.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL IN CRL.A.NO.9/2019 DATED 04.06.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K., MANGALURU BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER The Trial Court in Crl.Misc.Case No.106/2014 directed the revision petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to respondent No.1 herein from the date of petition till death of respondent No.1 or till if she get second marriage and an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month to respondent No.2 herein from the date of petition till attaining his majority. The revision petitioner was also ordered to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondents herein for separate accommodation from the date of furnishing the rent agreement by the respondents to the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4797 CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2019 revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs each to the respondents herein. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order, appeal is filed by both in Crl.A.Nos.103/2017 and 9/2019, wherein appeal filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondents herein was partly allowed by directing the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.1 herein from the date of petition till her death or till she gets second marriage and monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.2 herein from the date of petition till his attaining majority. The revision petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondents herein for their separate accommodation from the date of order. The said order is challenged before this Court by the revision petitioner. 3. This Court vide order dated 10.12.2019 granted interim stay subject to the revision petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to each of the respondents from the date of order of the Trial Court till realization and the petitioner paying Rs.10,000/- per month for separate accommodation of the respondents and a direction was given - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4797 CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2019 that the amount shall be paid within four weeks, failing which, the interim stay granted automatically stands cancelled. Inspite of the said order, no amount is paid, either the amount ordered by the Trial Court or the order passed by the Appellate Court. The order passed by this Court is also not complied inspite of the order was passed on 10.12.2019. When such being the case, there are no grounds to continue the petition. When the revision petitioner is not respecting the orders of the Trial Court, Appellate Court and also this Court, the question of considering this revision petition does not arise. 4. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45