- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37060 CRL.P No. 10004 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10004 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. A.K. ARUN S/O LATE S.P.ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O NO.234, SREE LAKSHMI NILAYA, TRIVENI NAGARA, T. NARASIPURA TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMARI HARSHITHA D/O A.K. ARUN, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. SOWMYA V.G, W/O A.K. ARUN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT HALE KURUBARA BEEDI, KOLLEGALA TOWN AND TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT IN GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT. &RESPONDENT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37060 CRL.P No. 10004 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.5029/2024 DATED 28.03.2025 BY THE HON9BLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA (SITTING AT KOLLEGALA) AT DOCUMENT NO.1 AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.97/2019 DATED 30.09.2024 BY THE HON9BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOLLEGALA AT DOCUMENT NO.2. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner3father, calling in question the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby maintenance has been awarded in favour of the minor daughter at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The grievance of the petitioner is that the quantum fixed is excessive and beyond his means, and therefore warrants interference by this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contends that the respondent3wife is gainfully employed and is drawing a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37060 CRL.P No. 10004 of 2025 monthly salary of Rs.61,000/-. It is urged that, despite the dissolution of marriage between the parties, the petitioner has been saddled with an unreasonable financial burden, particularly when the mother of the child has adequate means to support herself and the child. On these premises, it is submitted that the maintenance fixed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the Revisional Court is exorbitant and calls for reduction. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused the records of the case. A perusal of the impugned orders indicates that the petitioner has not placed any cogent material or documentary evidence before the Courts below, or even before this Court, to substantiate the assertion that the respondent3wife is employed and earns a salary of Rs.61,000/- per month. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the mother of the child has some source of income, the legal obligation of the father to maintain his minor daughter does not cease by reason of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37060 CRL.P No. 10004 of 2025 dissolution of the marriage or the employment of the mother. The statutory duty under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure casts a clear obligation on the father to provide for the needs of his minor child, commensurate with his earning capacity and status in life. 4. Both the learned Magistrate and the Revisional Court, upon a detailed appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, have concurrently held that the petitioner3 father, being an able-bodied person, is under a bounden duty to contribute towards the maintenance of his minor daughter. The sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, as awarded by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the Revisional Court, cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. On the contrary, having regard to the ever-increasing cost of living, educational expenses, medical needs, and other basic requirements of a growing child in present-day circumstances, the amount awarded appears to be on the lower side and is only a modest provision for the sustenance and welfare of the minor. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37060 CRL.P No. 10004 of 2025 5. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of inherent or supervisory jurisdiction. The contentions urged by the petitioner are devoid of substance and merit no acceptance. 6. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek modification of the maintenance amount before the competent Court, if there is any substantial change in circumstances in future. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42