- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10974 OF 2024 BETWEEN: NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O CHIKK MUNIYAPPA R/A CHIKKA CHEEMANAHALLI VILLAGE AVALAHALLI POST CHIKKABALLAPUR 562 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH S AND CO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.MUNIYAMMA W/OF NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A KEMPATHIMMAHALLI KANNAMANGALA POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 110 2. KUM KEERTHANA D/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.1, R/A KEMPATHIMMAHALLI, KANNAMANGALA POST, DEVENAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/11/2018 IN CRL. MISC NO. 758/2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI INITIATED UNDER SECTION 125 CR.P.C., AS ALSO THE CONSEQUENT ORDER DATED 25/6/2019 IN CRL. REVISION PETITION NO. 15040/2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL AT DEVANAHALLI BY ENHANCING THE MAINTENANCE AWARDED TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 125 CRPC. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 19/11/2018 in Crl.Mis.No.758/2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as also the consequent order dated 25/06/2019 in Crl.Revision Petition No. 15040/2018 passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural at Devanahaly by enhancing the maintenance awarded to the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice." 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner while respondent No.2 is their daughter. The respondents filed the instant petition in Crl.Misc.No.758/2014, which was allowed by the trial Court vide Order dated 19.11.2018 directing payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2. The said order directing payment of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 respondent No.2 was not challenged by the petitioner and the same attained finality qua the petitioner. However, respondents challenged the said order before the Revisional Court and sought for enhancement of maintenance. By the impugned order dated 25.06.2019, the Revisional Court enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to respondent No.1 to Rs.6,000/- and to respondent No.2 to Rs.4,000/- and imposed cost of Rs.20,000/- upon the petitioner who is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the trial Court correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record in order to come to the conclusion that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/ - per month respectively by holding as under: ORDER ON PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. The petitioners have filed above petition, directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/each - per month to petitioners. 2.The brief averments of case of the petitioners is as hereunder:- The petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of respondent, and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu customs at Amarnatha Swamy Temple, Kaivara, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 Kolar District on 21-06-1987. After the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent lived like husband and wife. Out of wedlock, petitioner No.1 gave birth to a female child who has attained majority as on the date of filing the petition. The petitioner No.2 is the 2nd child to the petitioner No.1 and respondent. It is submitted that, respondent has married for second time and started to live with the second wife. Since the date of second marriage of the respondent, the respondent deserted the petitioners and respondent refused to take petitioners back. The respondent earn handsome of income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month and as he has got land to an extent 5 acres in Sy. No.90 and 3 acres in Sy. No.100 of Cheemanahalli village Chikkaballapur District and also own vehicles which are given to private operator. The petitioner No.1 having no avocation and is not able to maintain herself and petitioner No.2. Therefore, prayed for sought direction to pay maintenance as stated above. 3. After filing of the petition this court has issued notice to respondent, in pursuant to notice the respondent has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed objection to the petition. 4. The respondent denied allegations made against him. It is submitted that, the responded is ready to take back the petitioners. The respondent himself taking care of his two children and the 1st petitioner, the respondent has spent huge amount and preformed the marriage of their 1st daughter. The petition is filed a the instigation of her son- in-law. It is further submitted that, respondent is an agriculturist, the properties belongs to joint family and all members of joint family are cultivating the said land. Apart from the cultivation of the land the respondent has got no other source of income. Since, respondent is ready to take back petitioners and intended live together. Hence prayed for dismissal of petition. 5. To substantiate the case, the petitioner stepped into the witness box and examined as PW1. She has also got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to 6. The respondent has not choose to cross examine PW1 as the respondent kept himself absent during the proceeding. The respondent even not adduced any evidence in his behalf. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 6.Thereafter heard arguments advanced by Learned counsel for the petitioners. After hearing the arguments and on perusal of the case papers the points that arise for consideration are as hereunder: POINTS 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the respondent has willfully neglected to maintain petitioners? 2. Whether the petitioners further prove that, the respondent has got sufficient means to maintain the petitioners? 3. Whether the petitioners further prove that, petitioner is unable to maintain herself and petitioner No.2? 4 Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance? If so, at what rate? 5. What order? 7. The findings on the above points are as hereunder: Point No.1: In the Affirmative. Point No.2: In the Affirmative. Point No.3: In the Affirmative. Point No.4: Partly in the Affirmative. At the rate of Rs. 5000/- in total per month to the petitioners. Point No.5: As per the final order for the following: REASONS 8.Point Nos.1 to 4:- since these points are inter connected , therefore taken for common discussion. 9. It is claim of the petitioners that, the respondent is husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.2. The respondent after marrying second time, started to neglect the petitioner. The respondent earns Rupees - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 2,00,000/- per moth as he has got landed property and the vehicles. Thus capable of maintain the petitioners But, failed to maintain the petitioners. the petitioner No.1 has got no avocation, which constrained her to approach the court to seek maintenance form her husband. 10. The petitioner No.1 who examined herself as PW1 has deposed the fact is averred in the petition. The PW1 has got produced the Ex.P1 to 6. EX.P-1 is the marriage invitation card pertaining to marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent, EX.P-2 to 6 are the RTC pertaining to Sy.No. 90, 100 of Cheemanahalli and land in Sy.No 98 of Uganavadi Village. 11. It is the claim of the petitioner that, the petitioner has got properties. On going through Ex.P 2 and 3 the RTCs pertaining to Sy.No. 90, 100 of Cheemanahalli, it reveals that, same are standing in the name of Narayanswami S/o Chikkamuniyappa to an extent of 5 and 3 acres respectively. Ex.P2 and 3 is of year 2014-15. Ex.P 4 is RTC bearing Sy.No. 98 of Uganavadi Village, wherein land to an extent of 0.10 gunta stands in the name of Narayanaswami S/ of Late Chikkamuniyappa. Ex.P5 and 6 are RTC pertaining Sy. No.100 and 90/1 of Cheemanahalli respectively which are of year 2017 wherein the there is no mention of the name of the respondent as possessor or cultivator. By producing Ex.p2 to 6, the petitioner contend that, the respondent has got properties and vehicle which fetch him hand some income. Thus capable of maintain the petitioner. 12. The respondent has not denied the relationship. But contended that, the petition is filed at the instigation of their son-in-law. It is also the contention of the respondent that, he is ready to take back the petitioner. it is further the contention of the respondent that, the properties are joint family properties. Thus from contention of the respondent it is clear that, the petitioners and the respondent are not living together. Further the evidence of Pw1 is not challenged by the petitioner thereby gives rise to way to infer that, the respondent has neglected to maintain the petitioners. 13. As far as inability of the petitioner No.1 to maintain herself and petitioner No.2 is concerned Pw1 has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 sworn before the court that, she has got no avocation. said version of the Pw1 is not challenged by the respondent. Further regarding the respondent owning the properties is concerned, as discussed above, there is no clear cut evidence to show that, the respondent has got properties. It is also necessary to mention that, the respondent has not denied that, he has got properties, but stated that, the properties belongs to the joint family, thus it could be assessed that, the respondent is able to maintain the petitioners. 14. As far as claim of the petitioner that, the respondent be directed to pay monthly maintenance of 10,000/- each to petitioners is concerned, there is no evidence to show the actual earning capacity of the respondent . However, that would no way dissolve the respondent from obligation of maintaining the petitioners as provision of section 125 of Criminal procedure code cast an obligation on husband/father to maintain his wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves. Thus by looking into fact and circumstance of the case and the status of the parties,the court thinks it fit that, if sum of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rupees 2000/- to the petitioner No.2 is directed to be paid by the respondent, it would meet the need of the parties. In view of the same Point 1 to 3 are answer in affirmative and point No.4 in partly affirmative. 15. Point No.5 : In the light of the discussions made above, this court proceeds to pass the following:- ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is hereby partly allowed Consequently, the respondent is hereby directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/ - per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/ - per month to the petitioner No.2 from the date of the petition till the alternation of order by the court. The respondent is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of this petition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 Supply free copy of the order to the petitioners." 4. As stated supra, the said order of the trial Court directing payment of maintenance by the petitioner in favour of the respondents has attained finality and has not been questioned by the petitioner. It follows there from that the dispute involved in the present petition is only as regards quantum of maintenance as enhanced by the Revisional Court in favour of the respondents payable by the petitioner. In this context, a perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 25.06.2019 passed by the trial Court will indicate that the Revisional Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and taken into account the galloping rate of inflation and increasing cost of living and complete and total inability on the part of the respondents to maintain themselves, since they have no any other source of income to eke out their livelihood and has recorded a categorical finding that the maintenance awarded by the trial Court deserves to be enhanced to Rs.6,000/- in favour of respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/- in favour of respondent No.2 by holding as under: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 This revision is filed U/s 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.,) against Order dated 19/11/2018 passed by the Addl.Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, in C.C.No.758/2014, whereby, the learned Magistrate has directed the respondent herein to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2 from the date of petition. The respondent is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of the petition. 2. The parties herein after referred as per their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, is as below; The marriage of the 1st petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 21-6-1987 at Amarnatha Swamy Temple, Kaivara, Kolar District, as per the rites and rituals of their community. After the marriage, the 1st petitioner and respondent were residing together at matrimonial home and out of their wedlock 2nd petitioner was born. It is submitted that, later the respondent contracted second marriage with one Rathnamma and started to neglect the 1st petitioner and her minor daughters to maintain inspite of his sufficient means. The respondent ousted the petitioners and started to live with his second wife. Therefore the petitioner was constrained to reside separately with her minor daughter. The first daughter of the petitioner is married. The petitioner has contended that the respondent is having handsome income of Rs. 2 lakhs per month and own land to an extent of 5 acres in Sy.No.90 and 3 acres in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 Sy.No.100 of Cheemanahalli Village, Chikkaballapur District and also having own vehicles which let out on rent for private operators. Therefore the petitioner sought for interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and Rs.10,000/- for the petitioner No.2 towards their maintenance. 4. On service of summons the respondent entered appearance through his counsel and filed detailed objection to the petition. The respondent has admitted his relationship with the petitioners, however refuted all other allegations regarding ill-treatment and second marriage, as well as regarding his means. 5. The petitioner in order to prove her claim adduced her evidence and got examined as PW.1 and produced several documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The respondent has not challenged the evidence of PW.1 by way of cross-examination, therefore evidence adduced by the petitioner remained uncontroverted. The respondent has not adduced any evidence in his defense 6. The learned Magistrate on considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner, by impugned order has directed the respondent to pay maintenance amount as aforesaid. The revision petitioners being dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance directed by the learned Magistrate has filed present revision mainly on the ground that the learned Magistrate has erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner regarding the means of respondent as well as it is contended that the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 quantum of maintenance order by the learned Magistrate is inadequate and irrational. Therefore the petitioner has sought to interfere in the impugned order by enhancing the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to each petitioners. 7. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance through his counsel and filed objection to the main petition contending that the maintenance directed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper. Further it is contended that there is no any grounds made out to interfere in the impugned order. The respondent has pleaded no means to pay any amount, if enhanced by this court by allowing the revision petition, therefore sought to justify the impugned order and to dismiss the revision petition with exemplary cost. 8. The trial court records called and received. 9. On the premise of rival submission and perusal of evidence on record, the points that would arise for my consideration are as below; 1 Whether the learned Magistrate has justified in directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds for enhancement of maintenance amount as sought for? 3. What order? - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 10. My answers to the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: Partly in the Affirmative Point No.3: As per the order for the following: REASONS POINT NO.1& 2: 11. These points are taken up together for consideration, as they are inter-linked each other and to avoid the repetition of facts. 12. I have gone through the entire records and evidence adduced by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner No.1 was got examined as PW.1 and filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief by reiterating the petition averments. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent is living with his second wife and two children. She has alleged that after second marriage, the respondent deserted the petitioner and her children. The petitioner has produced the marriage invitation card which is marked as Ex.P1 and in order to prove that the respondent is having sufficient means, the petitioner has produced RTCs which stands in the name of respondent which were marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P6. I have gone through the documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P6. Ex.P2 is the RTC pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.90, measuring to an extent of 5 acres, situated at Cheemanahalli, Chikkaballapur District, which stands in the name of respondent. Ex.P3 is the RTC pertaining to land bearing - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 Sy.No.100, measuring to an extent of 3 acres, situated at Cheemanahalli, Chikkaballapur District, which stands in the name of respondent. Ex.P4 is the RTC related to land bearing Sy.No.98 measuring 0.10 guntas, situated at Uganavaid village of Devanahalli Taluk. Ex.P5 & Ex.P6 are stands in the names of sons of respondent. 13. The respondent has admitted his relationship with the petitioners. The allegations regarding the second marriage, respondent has denied, however the documents placed by the petitioner before this court speaks that the respondent has entered into a compromise decree in a suit filed by his son for partition. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that with an ulterior motive to defeat the legal rights of the appellants, they have filed collusive suit in the back and behind of the appellants and their elder daughter and obtained compromise decree however that is not the subject matter before this court. 14. The provision under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is a social piece of legislation which engrafted with a noble intention to provide monitory relief to the wife, his legitimate or ill-legitmate minor child or the parents who unable to maintain themselves. The burden is upon respondent to show that the petitioner U/s 125 of Cr.P.C., is having sufficient means to maintain themselves. In the instant case, the petitioner has claimed that she is unable to maintain herself, therefore she sought for an order of maintenance. The documents produced by the petitioner before the trial court evident that the respondent is having large extent of land in his name. In the statement of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 objection, the respondent has disputed his source of means. It is settled position of law that mere assertion is not sufficient to prove the facts in dispute. The respondent has not adduced any evidence nor cross-examined the PW.1. Therefore what ever the evidence adduced by the petitioner remained un-challenged and uncontroverted. 15. The quantum of maintenance must be adequate and reasonable. The Magistrate while determining the quantum of amount shall consider the financial position of the respondent and the standard of living to which the petitioner adopted. In the present economy, the amount of Rs.3,000/- cannot be held adequate in any sense or one can not lead an ordinary life for a month in such small amount. The learned Magistrate has not discussed about the source of income of the respondent nor given any justifiable reason for awarding lesser amount of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd petitioner. It is stated that the 2nd petitioner is pursuing her education. I am of the view that considering the above circumstances, the amount directed by the learned Magistrate can not be held adequate or reasonable, the same is liable to be enhanced for Rs.6,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.4000/- to the second petitioner . Accordingly the points for consideration answered. POINT NO.3: 16. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following: - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 ORDER The Revision petition filed U/Sec.397 of Cr.P.C., is partly allowed. The order dated 19/11/2018 passed by the Addl.Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli in Crl.Mis.No.758/2014 is modified as hereunder: The petition filed U/s 125 Cr.P.C., is partly allowed The respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/-to the first petitioner and Rs.4,000/- to the second petitioner from the date of petition. The respondent is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the petition. Office is directed to provide free copy of the order to the petitioner. Send the copy of this order along with L.C.R to the trial court forthwith." 5. Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re- appreciation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court are correct and proper and the same cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse occasioning failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:7792 CRL.P No. 10974 of 2024 jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders and present petition is accordingly dismissed. The Registry is directed to disburse / release the entire amount deposited by the petitioner before this Court in favour of the respondent no.1 immediately without any delay. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89