- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5750 CRL.P No. 103012 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103012 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. T. VENKATA KRISHNAVARA PRASADA RAJU S/O. VENKATA KRISHNA RANGA RAJU, AGE: 43 YEARS, R/O: HOUSE NO.2/12/10-1, SHIVA RAOPETE, BHIMAVARAM, DIST: WEST GODAVARI, STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH – 534 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SANDHYA C. H., W/O. T. VENKATA KRISHNAVARA PRASADA RAJU, AGE: 38 YEARS, R/O: C/O :RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, BEHIND A. P. M. C. NEAR VISHWABHARATI SCHOOL, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR – 583 212. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.G.INDI, ADVOCATE APPEARED FOR SRI K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,(U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) DATED 14.03.2024 PASSED IN CRL. REV. PET. 5186/2023 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI DATED 11.07.2023 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. 58/2022 AND DISMISS THE PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5750 CRL.P No. 103012 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 14.03.2024 in Crl.R.P. No.5186/2023 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hosapete, confirming the order dated 11.07.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.58/2022 by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli and prayed to dismiss the petition by allowing this petition. 2. Petitioner is the husband of respondent. The respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.Misc.No.58/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli seeking maintenance. In the said petition, husband appeared and contested the petition. The wife has been examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. The husband has been examined as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.R-1 to R-4. The husband did not appear - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5750 CRL.P No. 103012 of 2024 for cross-examination and therefore his evidence came to be discarded. 3. Learned Magistrate after hearing arguments, has passed the order dated 11.07.2023 awarding maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. The said order has been challenged by the husband in Crl.R.P.No.5186/2023. The said Revision petition came to be dismissed by order dated 14.03.2024 by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari sitting at Hosapete confirming the order passed by the Magistrate and given liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., seeking alteration of maintenance on the ground that wife is earning sufficient income. The petitioner- husband did not avail the said liberty and has filed present petition. 4. Heard learned counsels for petitioner and respondent. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5750 CRL.P No. 103012 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the evidence of RW-1 has not been considered as he has not been kept present for cross-examination and his evidence had been discarded. He submits that there is no evidence of the husband to contravene the evidence of wife. The revisional Court even though considered the said aspect, has erred in holding that sufficient opportunity was given to the husband to keep himself present for cross- examination but he has not availed it. The award of maintenance is based on a fact that the petitioner has booked Tirupati laddu of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner is earning only Rs.15,000/- per month as a salary. Considering the said aspects, the maintenance awarded in a sum of Rs.30,000/- is on higher side. With this, he prayed to allow the petition. 6. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, the husband did not kept himself present for cross-examination and trial Court has rightly discarded his evidence as he has not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5750 CRL.P No. 103012 of 2024 been kept present for cross-examination. The husband has agricultural lands and the property documents of those agricultural lands which are at Ex.P-2 to P-5, indicates that husband is having income from those agricultural lands. Apart from that, he is also getting salary. Considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. The revisional Court considering all these aspects, has rightly dismissed the Revision petition and gave liberty to the husband to file petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., seeking alteration of maintenance. The husband instead of availing the said liberty has approached this Court. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned order and trial Court records. 8. The relationship between parties is not in dispute. The petitioner is husband and respondent is his wife. Ex.P-2 to P-5 indicates that agricultural lands are standing in the name of husband and he is getting income - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5750 CRL.P No. 103012 of 2024 from those agricultural lands. The learned Magistrate has noted that the petitioner and his mother have cooked Tirupati laddu for Rs.50,000/- and that itself indicate the income of the husband. Even though, the husband has been examined as RW-1 and produced Exs.R-1 to R-4, he did not kept himself present for cross-examination and his evidence has been discarded. After his evidence has been discarded, the matter was pending before the learned Magistrate nearly for four (4) months and no effort has been made by the husband to file any application seeking recall of the order discarding his evidence. The revisional Court also noted that sufficient opportunity has been given to the husband to keep himself present for cross- examination. The order passed by the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge are based on the evidence on record. The petitioner instead of filing the petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., seeking alteration of maintenance as per liberty granted by the Sessions Court has filed this petition. Considering all these aspects, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5750 CRL.P No. 103012 of 2024 9. In the result, the following: ORDER i. The petition is dismissed. ii. Registry is directed to return trial Court records. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40