- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2101 CRL.P No. 100298 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100298 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. REKHA W/O ASHOK GUDADI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 2. KUMAR. SHIVANAND S/O ASHOK GUDAI, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR, R/BY NATURAL MOTHER, M/G I.E., PETITIONER NO.1, BOTH ARE R/O: GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 306. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: ASHOK S/O BABURAO GUDADI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O: BASAV NAGAR, GHATAPRABHA, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 306. … RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT-SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL. REV. PETITION NO.295/2019, PASSED BY THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT: GOKAK, DATED 08/01/2020 AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2019 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.600/2016 BY IST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT GOKAK IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.06 11:20:54 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2101 CRL.P No. 100298 of 2020 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, wherein the maintenance granted by the Trial Court in favor of the petitioners was reduced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, is impugned in this petition. 2. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, and Petitioner No.2 is the son of the respondent. They filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.PC seeking maintenance. Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P15. The respondent examined himself as RW1 and marked documents as Exs.R1 to R22. 3. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the respondent had neglected to maintain the petitioners and, therefore, directed him to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioners collectively from the date of the petition. 4. The learned Sessions Judge modified the order, holding that Petitioner No.1 – wife is not entitled to maintenance as she failed to produce any evidence to establish that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent. Furthermore, she had not provided valid reasons for leaving the matrimonial home. 5. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not appeared in person or through counsel and is thus placed ex parte. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2101 CRL.P No. 100298 of 2020 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The contention of the respondent is that Petitioner No.1 voluntarily deserted him and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance. However, in her examination-in-chief, Petitioner No.1 categorically stated that she left the matrimonial home due to cruelty inflicted by the respondent and his family members. Nothing was elicited during her cross-examination to discredit her statement. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the convening of a panchayat to resolve the dispute between Petitioner No.1 and the respondent was undisputed and concluded that there was no occasion for the respondent to harass Petitioner No.1. 8. It is a settled principle of law that a husband is obligated to maintain his wife and children. The documents at Exs.P1 to P6 clearly establish that the respondent owns agricultural land and is employed as an engineer at Hunashyal Sugar Factory. The respondent has not produced any witness who participated in the panchayat to resolve the dispute between him and Petitioner No.1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that Petitioner No.1 voluntarily deserted the respondent. Given that the respondent has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife. Consequently, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, denying maintenance to Petitioner No.1, is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2101 CRL.P No. 100298 of 2020 ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 8.1.2020 passed in Crl.RP No.295/2019 by the learned XII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgavi, sitting at Gokak is hereby set aside and criminal revision petition is dismissed, and the order dated 16.5.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.600/2016 by the learned I Addl. Civil Jduge and JMFC, Gogak, granting maintenance of Rs.8,000/- p.m. collectively to the petitioners is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 157