- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2700 CRL.P No. 101450 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101450 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHANKAR S/O. SIDDAPPA MUTAGAR, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: POLICE, R/O. GHAJENDRAGADA POLICE STATION, TQ. RON-582114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PADMA, W/O. SHANKAR MUTTAGAR, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MALLAPUR P.G., TQ. GOKAK-591218. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHANKUMAR M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.03.2022 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.8045/2021 PASSED BY XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT. GOKAK, CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.08.2021 IN CRL.MISC.NO.08/2017 BY I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT GOKAK AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY WIFE/RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, 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: 2025.02.14 13:20:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2700 CRL.P No. 101450 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Revisional Court, which upheld the order of the Trial Court granting maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. 2. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent failed to establish that she is the wife of the petitioner and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance. The petitioner further contends that the Trial Court denied him sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the respondent and lead evidence, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The petitioner, although disputing the marriage, admits to having four children from the wedlock. Hence, his contention that the respondent failed to establish her status as his wife is without merit. 5. The petitioner was employed as a Police Constable at the time of filing the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and he is legally obligated to maintain his wife. Furthermore, he has not presented any material evidence to substantiate his inability to pay ₹8,000/- per month. Notably, the petitioner has since been promoted to Head Constable and has sufficient means to pay the awarded maintenance. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2700 CRL.P No. 101450 of 2022 6. Finding no illegality in the impugned order of the Trial Court, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68