- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:68 CRL.P No. 100156 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100156 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: YALLAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HAVERI, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI AND SRI. N.J. APPANNAVAR, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. MADHUMATI W/O YALLAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HOSANIRALAGI, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-580 001. … RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.24/2019 DATED: 27/12/2019, DISMISSING THE IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.24/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.21 09:48:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:68 CRL.P No. 100156 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, wherein the revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected, thereby confirming the order of the trial court granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the complainant. 3. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that, although the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity to cross- examine P.Ws.1 and 2, he chose not to do so. Furthermore, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claims that the complainant had voluntarily deserted him or that he was incapable of paying Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance. The petitioner also failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay in filing the revision petition. 4. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the revision petition. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 60