- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 15265 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. SRIKANTH T.G., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O. SHRI. T.M. GOPALKRISHNA, R/AT NO.2607, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE EAST, OPP TO 108 GANAPATHI TEMPLE, BANGALORE - 560 078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. R. SHREE LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O. SRI. V. RAMESH CHANDRA BABU, R/AT NO.5, SIDDIKESHWARA NILAYA, KEREKODI, EGALAPPA GARDEN, BANGARPET - 563 114 2. KUM. S. CHERIKA, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, SMT R. SHREE LAKSHMI, R/AT NO.5, SIDDIKESHWARA NILAYA, KEREKODI, EGALAPPA GARDEN, BANGARPET - 563 114 3. THE REGISTRAR (GENERAL) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ORDER FOR THE TRANSFER OF TRIAL CASE BEARING CMC.NO.181/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BANGARPET TO THE COURT OF HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR FOR THE FAIR DISPOSAL OF THE SAME AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS W.P., COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, (i) to transfer the case in C.M.C.No.181/2018 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Bangarpet to the Court of learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Kolar (herein after referred to as “Trial Court”) for disposal, (ii) to direct respondent No.3 to consider the complaint / representation submitted by the petitioner seeking disciplinary action against the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court and (iii) to direct the said Presiding Officer to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation to the petitioner for causing mental agony due to the abuse of the Judicial power. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the wife and child of the petitioner filed C.M.C.No.181/2018 claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.PC'). It is the contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that, respondent No.1 married the petitioner herein on 06.06.2017, and in the marriage they have begotten the girl child-respondent No.2. When she was 30 days old, C.M.C.No.181/2018 was filed claiming monthly maintenance before the Trial Court. The claimants have sought for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.2. The petitioner herein being respondent in C.M.C.No.181/2018 filed his objections statement. After considering the objections, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the order awarding Rs.3,500/- to be paid to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein as monthly interim maintenance and the matter was set down for evidence. 3. It is stated that the petitioner-husband has challenged the order granting interim maintenance before the learned Sessions Judge by preferring a Criminal Revision - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 Petition No.45/2019, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2019, while confirming the order of the learned Magistrate granting interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/-. Thus, the order granting interim maintenance has reached finality. 4. It is the contention of the wife that the petitioner herein had not paid the interim maintenance as directed. Therefore, she filed C.M.C.No.146/2019 seeking recovery of the maintenance amount. The petitioner herein was summoned before the Trial Court. Accordingly, he appeared through his counsel and sought for time to file objections. Even after several months, since the arrears of maintenance was not paid by the petitioner herein, learned Magistrate seems to have warned the petitioner herein that he will be taken into custody unless he pays the arrears of maintenance. It is stated that the petitioner paid Rs.10,000/-, and later the matter was adjourned to next date of hearing. 5. Now it is the contention of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate could not have threatened the petitioner that he will be taken to custody, since there was no warrant issued against him and the learned Magistrate was not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 authorized to direct the police to take the petitioner to custody. Therefore, a representation was submitted to respondent No.3 i.e. learned Registrar General of this Court to initiate disciplinary action against the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court. The petitioner also claims for payment of Rs.500/- from the Presiding Officer as compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after addressing his arguments for some time, filed I.A.No.1/2025 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to permit the petitioner to implead the Judicial Officer concerned as respondent No.4. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that even though the petitioner had sought for payment of compensation by the Judicial Officer, he is not a party in the present proceedings and therefore, the petitioner has filed the application to implead the Judicial Officer concerned as one of the respondents. 7. Heard Sri Kiran N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.B.V.Vidyulatha, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on I.A.No.1/2025 and also on merits. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained unrepresented inspite of service of notice. Perused the materials on record. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration are: (i) Whether I.A.No.1/2025 is liable to be allowed? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief as sought in the petition? My answer to the above points are in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner who is present before the Court, that he had filed a Matrimonial Case, seeking divorce against respondent No.1 on the ground of cruelty. On merits, the said petition came to be allowed, and the marriage was dissolved on 03.08.2024. Admittedly, the said order has reached finality as none of the parties have challenged the same. 10. It is also stated that C.M.C.No.181/2018 which was pending before the Trial Court is already allowed vide order dated 09.06.2022, awarding maintenance of Rs.9,000/- each to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner herein challenged the said order by preferring the Revision in Crl.Rev.P.No.32/2022. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 05.04.2024 partly allowed the petition, setting aside the order granting maintenance to the wife. However, awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to respondent No.2. The said order has reached finality. Therefore, it is clear that Crl.Misc.No.181/2018 before the Trial Court was disposed of on 09.06.2022 and even the Revision Petition has been disposed of on 05.04.2023. Under such circumstances, prayer No.1 made by the petitioner seeking transfer of C.M.C.No.181/2018 to the Court of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar does not survive for consideration. 11. The second prayer made by the petitioner is with regard to consideration of the representation submitted by him to respondent No.3 seeking disciplinary action against the learned Magistrate. Respondent No.3 represented by his Advocate, submits that an enquiry was held, and being satisfied with the explanation given by the learned Magistrate, no action was initiated against him. Under such circumstances, once - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 again directing respondent No.3 to initiate disciplinary action against the Presiding Officer does not arise. 12. Now the third prayer made by the petitioner assumes importance. He seeks direction to the learned Magistrate to pay compensation of Rs.500/- for the mental agony and abuse of his power. 13. The petitioner is personally present before the Court and he claims to be an Engineer by profession. He makes the oral submission before this Court saying that some painful incidents have occurred before the Trial Court on 31.07.2021. Then his advocate advised him to approach this Court to get justice and therefore he followed his advise and filed the petition. He also states that he is not aware of the consequences and the legal implications involved in this case. He further states that he is paying Rs.15,000/- to respondent No.2 as directed by the Court as monthly maintenance and in that regard he files the memo which reads as under: "I, Srikanth T.G was respondent No.1 in the CMC.No.146/2020. I appeared to the Case dated on 31 July 2021. The case was posted for objections but I was incorrectly detained in custody by calling out another case - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 CMC.No.146/2019. I was really pained by the proceedings on that day and my mother suffered health issues due to the same. The petitioner also circulated pictures of me in the custody to close relatives. This pained us a lot and we discussed the matter with our Advocate who advised in that we can approach this honourable Court for justice and I followed the same is not being aware of legal procedure as per his advise. As of date, I am paying Rs.15,000/- to petitioner No.2 (Kum.Cherika) as directed by honourable Court. No maintenance was awarded to petitioner No.1 (Shree Lakshmi)." 14. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to justify his prayer made at Sl.No.3, he was bent upon to seek action against the Judicial Officer and awarding of compensation on the ground that the learned Magistrate had no authority to direct the police to take the petitioner herein into custody, when no warrant was pending, and when the matter was posted for filing objections. 15. The materials on record disclose that, respondent No.2 herein was aged only 30 days when the petition in CMC.No.181/2018 was filed. Inspite of that, sufficient opportunity was given to the husband to file his objections, and after considering the same, the order granting interim - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 maintenance was passed awarding Rs.3,500/- per month. Even though the said order was challenged by the husband before the Revisional Court in Crl.Rev.No.45/2019, the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2019. Admittedly, the said order has reached finality. Therefore, the petitioner herein was bound to pay Rs.3,500/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 24.11.2018. Admittedly, the said amount was not paid regularly. Even according to learned counsel for the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid till 31.07.2021. According to learned counsel for respondent No.3, an amount of Rs.68,000/- was due from the petitioner as on 17.12.2020. 16. It is a matter of fact that, the wife and the daughter have filed CMC.No.146/2019 claiming arrears of maintenance. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner herein entered his appearance in said case on 07.04.2021. On 31.07.2021 when the matter was listed for filing objections, it was brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer that the petitioner herein has not paid the maintenance amount as awarded. As per the statement of objection filed by learned counsel for respondent - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 No.3, considering the plight of the wife and the child, the learned Magistrate directed the respondent to pay the arrears of maintenance, and in default to pay the said amount, warned to take him to custody. It is only thereafter, the petitioner arranged for Rs.10,000/- and paid the same to respondent No.1 against the arrears of more than Rs.68,000/-. As per the order sheet, the petitioner was not remanded to custody. 17. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, the Judicial Officer at the most might have orally directed the husband to be taken to custody till he makes payment. The reason is obvious. It is only to compel him to make payment to the wife and the child for their survival. The same cannot be blown out of proportion to contend that the learned Magistrate has misused his authority in directing the petitioner to make payment or else to remand him to custody. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, under Section 125(3) of Cr.PC, if the petitioner fails to comply with the order, the learned Magistrate can only issue a warrant levying the amount due in the matter, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 and cannot warn the petitioner to be taken into custody without there being any warrant. This contention cannot be accepted in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. When the petitioner himself admits that he had not paid the maintenance amount as ordered by the learned Magistrate, which has already reached finality, the petitioner cannot have any justification not making payments. 19. The statement of objection appended to the bill for amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2001 refers to the laudable object, which called for amending the code to enable the learned Magistrate to award interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.PC. The helpless and unfortunate wife and child were forced to wait indefinitely for several years to get relief from the Court. Under such circumstances, the legislators in their wisdom felt that, granting of interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition in favour of the destitute wife and child under Section 125 of the Code was the need of the hour. Accordingly Section 125 of Cr.PC was amended, permitting awarding of interim maintenance and expenses from the date of application for maintenance or interim maintenance as the case may be. At the same time, the maximum amount - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 that was permitted to be awarded under Section 125 which was fixed at Rs.500/- was omitted giving the discretion to the learned Magistrate to determine the quantum of maintenance, for which, such wife and child are entitled to. The amended provision also mandates the Court to dispose off any application seeking interim maintenance and the expenses of the proceedings filed by the wife or the children to be disposed off within a period of 60 days from the date of service of notice of such application on the respondent. These amendments were brought into effect with an intention to safeguard the interests of the wife and children who approach the Court claiming maintenance from the husband who has refused to maintain them. 20. The authority of the learned Magistrate acting under Section 125 of Cr.PC, to take the petitioner to custody on proof of refusal to maintain the child cannot be disputed. When admittedly, the petitioner is due to pay a huge sum of amount towards the interim maintenance of the child and when petitioner has no defence on his behalf to keep the amount in arrears, I do not find any reason to find fault with the learned Magistrate in compelling the petitioner to pay the amount - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 towards interim maintenance. On refusal to make payment of the arrears of maintenance, the Magistrate is authorized to take the petitioner herein to custody and remand him when he is personally present before the Court. The need for issuance of warrant would be required to enable the police officer to take the husband to custody and to produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Issuance of Fine Levy Warrant would enable the learned Magistrate to authorise the officer to realise the amount due to be paid as if it is arrears of land revenue. 21. From the records, it is clear that the petitioner paid Rs.10,000/- on 31.07.2021 towards the part payment of interim maintenance which was due to be paid. But for the compulsion by the learned Magistrate to the petitioner herein, even the said amount would not have been paid. When the child was in a helpless condition, as he was not in a position to recover the arrears of interim maintenance from his father, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in asking the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance, failing which admonished the petitioner that he will be taken into custody. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 22. It is the contention of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate, without issuing the warrant, had taken the petitioner into custody. The order sheet does not speak to that effect. Even if the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner was taken to custody by the Police Constable as per the direction of the learned Magistrate is to be believed, the same cannot be found fault with when the petitioner is admittedly a defaulter, who failed to make the payment of arrears of the interim maintenance. The learned Magistrate is authorized to recover the said amount by sending him to judicial custody. Sending the petitioner to jail is only a mode of enforcement of the order but definitely it is not a mode of satisfaction of the amount due. The whole purpose of sending the petitioner to jail is to make him to oblige with such order, and thereby, obey the order of the court which has already reached finality. Even if the learned Magistrate is to take the petitioner into custody and send him to jail, the same would not wipe out the liability which he has refused to discharge. The learned Magistrate is authorized under law to take the petitioner to custody and to send him to jail when he is satisfied that the petitioner has failed to pay the interim - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 maintenance without sufficient cause, rather, he is refusing to pay the amount in spite of the order reaching finality. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in cautioning the petitioner herein of taking him to custody or in actually taking him to custody without issuing any warrant as the defaulter was very much present before the Court. Only in case of remanding the petitioner herein to custody, the Magistrate is required to issue such warrant. 23. The Advocate who appears before the Court and represents his client is considered to be an officer of the Court, and he owes a duty towards the Court as much as his duty towards his client. An Advocate should always up-hold the rule of law while safe-guarding the interest of his client, and he is not supposed to abuse or take advantage of the confidence reposed by his client on him. An advocate being in the noble profession, is not supposed to mislead the client and indulge in arm-twisting tactics with the court. 24. The Bar and Bench are part of the same judicial system and enjoy equal reputation. They are the integral part of judicial system. If baseless and scathing attack is made on - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 the Judicial Officer, it would be difficult to run the system smoothly and fearlessly. When a Judicial Officer is not permitted to discharge his duty fearlessly, it cannot be said that the Court will be in a position to up-hold the rule of law. Neither the lawyer nor the litigant are permitted to browbeat the Court or malign the Judicial Officer only with an intention to get a favourable order. Simply because an advocate is not successful in getting favorable order, he cannot be permitted to intimidate the Judicial Officer. Unfortunately, nowadays such dangerous trend of making unfounded allegations against the Judicial Officers and humiliating them is on the rise, only with an intention to see that the Judicial Officer succumbs to their unreasonable demand of passing a favorable order, like adjourning the matter without insisting for hearing. An advocate being a professional, shall not identify himself with his client, and he cannot be a mouthpiece of his client to target the Judicial Officer with an intention to pressurize him. Such conduct if encouraged would cause serious damage to the institution of judiciary. Any unethical behavior, violation of professional ethics and standards will definitely bring disrespect - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 to the legal profession and it amounts to professional misconduct, for which, such advocate will be answerable. 25. Even though there was no justification for the petitioner for refusing to pay the arrears of interim maintenance, learned counsel representing the petitioner herein, who was also representing him before the trial Court, has made unfounded allegation against the learned Magistrate. By no stretch of imagination the learned counsel for the petitioner could refer to the order of the learned Magistrate as illegal. It is in fact, the learned counsel representing the petitioner who has played a significant role in instigating the petitioner to make such allegations against the learned Magistrate who was discharging his duty in accordance with law. It is stated that the learned Magistrate had taken charge of the office on that very same day, and in spite of that, the learned counsel had gone to the extent of making allegations against him that he was biased. When such unfounded allegations are made against the learned Magistrate, the learned counsel should be aware of its consequences. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the counsel who is representing the petitioner has gone out of the way in advising - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 his client to make all sorts of unfounded allegations against the learned Magistrate, and to file this writ petition seeking transfer of CMC.No.181/2018 pending before the learned Magistrate to the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar, to direct respondent No.3 to initiate disciplinary action against the learned Magistrate, and to direct him to pay the compensation to the petitioner, which is unknown to law. 26. From the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am of the opinion that, it is the brain-child of the counsel representing the petitioner, both before this Court and before the trial Court to make unfounded and scathing allegations against the Judicial Officer. It is nothing but an arm-twisting tactics adopted to get a favorable order by terrorizing the Judicial Officer and forcing him to adjourn he matter, which cannot be permitted at any cost. Therefore, I am satisfied that the conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner is nothing short of professional misconduct, and the same is to be dealt with a firm hand. If no such actions are taken, it will send a wrong message to the Members of the Bar Association and also to the general public, that they can go to any extent to pressurize the Judicial Officer and to dictate terms to get a - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 favorable order, and there is no system in place to control them. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to refer the counsel for the petitioner to the Bar Council to initiate necessary action for his professional misconduct. 27. The facts and circumstances discussed above shows the conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner in advising the petitioner against the learned Magistrate who was discharging his duty as a Judicial Officer and directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance to his wife and child as per the order which has admittedly reached finality. It is also admitted that there was default on the part of the petitioner herein in making payments. Under such circumstances, no ill-will could be attached to the conduct of the Judicial Officer, as he is not personally interested in the matter. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 specifically submits that, the learned Magistrate had taken charge on the very same day i.e. on 31.07.2021 and was discharging his official duty for the first day, but high drama was created in the open Court by the very counsel now representing the petitioner, by raising his voice only with an intention to get an adjournment without making any payment. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 28. It is interesting to note that inspite of all these developments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1/2025 seeking impleadment of the learned Judicial Magistrate in his personal capacity as respondent No.4. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that when the matter was taken up for hearing on 25.01.2023, this Court observed that the Judicial Officer from whom the compensation is being claimed is not a party to the proceedings. Therefore, it is stated that the learned Judicial Officer is a necessary party to the proceedings. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein admits that he was the advocate who was representing the petitioner herein before the Trial Court. Even when the party submits that he acted solely on the advise of the very same counsel, he is bent upon to pursue the matter, and even insisted this Court to implead the Judicial Officer concerned as respondent No.4 by allowing the application, I.A.No.1/2025. Prima facie it is the misconduct on the part of the advocate for petitioner to advise the party to seek compensation from the Judicial Officer concerned who was only discharging his official duty by making baseless allegations. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2025 is liable to be - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 dismissed. Moreover, the conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner is unbecoming of a professional. Under such circumstances, it is a fit case for the Karnataka Bar Council to initiate disciplinary action against the learned counsel representing the petitioner herein as well as before the Trial Court. 30. Thus, in view of the discussions held above, it is clear that prayers at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in the petition have become redundant. The claim at Sl.No.3 is without any basis. On facts of the case, it is observed that, seeking impleadment of the Judicial Officer as one of the respondents and seeking compensation from him is without any justifiable cause. I do not find any merits in the contentions taken by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this petition. 31. In view of above, I answer both the above points in the ‘negative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed. (ii) The petition is dismissed. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:8370 WP No. 15265 of 2021 (iii) The matter is referred to the Karnataka Bar Council with a direction to initiate disciplinary action against Sri. Kiran N, (Kar.1410/2016), the counsel for the petitioner for his misconduct, in accordance with law. The office shall communicate this order to the Karnataka Bar Council. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10