- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32149 CRL.P No. 11768 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11768 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. C. KUBENDRANAIK S/O. LATE CHANDRANAIK, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT MAHARAJA MADAKARINAYAKA FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, 2ND STAGE, DHAVALAGIRI EXTENSION, KSFAC PETROL BUNK ROAD, BEHIND SJM COLLEGE, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYARAJ D.S, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. NINGAMMA W/O. KUBENDRANAIK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEHRUNAGAR, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN, KARNATAKA - 577 501. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32149 CRL.P No. 11768 of 2025 14.02.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN ALLOWING THE CRL.R.P. NO.141/2023 PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband assailing the order of the revisional court, which has reversed the order of the learned Magistrate and restored the maintenance awarded to the respondent at the rate of Rs.10,000-00 p.m. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: The respondent/wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance from the present petitioner/husband. In the said proceedings, the learned Magistrate, taking note of the fact that the petitioner was then employed as an Assistant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32149 CRL.P No. 11768 of 2025 Professor and drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.87,780/-, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife. Thereafter, the petitioner/husband filed a petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. contending that he had since superannuated, his income had drastically reduced, and therefore, the quantum of maintenance deserved to be reduced. 3. The respondent/wife contested the said proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.114/2018. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, the learned Magistrate, noting that the petitioner was drawing pension post-retirement, marginally reduced the maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the respondent/wife preferred a revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.141/2023. The revisional court, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32149 CRL.P No. 11768 of 2025 on an appraisal of the records and by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, Civil Appeal No.5369/2017, wherein it has been held that the wife is ordinarily entitled to 25% of the husband’s net salary as maintenance, proceeded to reassess the entitlement. Taking into account the admitted pension of Rs.48,000/- per month, the revisional court was of the view that the wife would be entitled to at least Rs.12,000/- per month by way of maintenance. However, striking a balance of equity, the revisional court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Magistrate, and restored the maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband has strenuously argued before this Court that the maintenance awarded is on the higher side and requires reduction, particularly since the petitioner has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32149 CRL.P No. 11768 of 2025 superannuated and, according to him, is receiving only a meager pension of Rs.26,000/- per month. 6. This Court, however, is unable to accept the said contention. The record clearly belies the submission. A perusal of the orders passed by both the learned Magistrate and the revisional court discloses that the petitioner himself, during cross- examination recorded on 14.06.2024, admitted that he is drawing a pension of Rs.48,000/-per month. Further, the respondent/wife has consistently asserted that the petitioner has also received retirement benefits of around Rs.40,00,000/-, a statement which has not been effectively controverted by the petitioner by producing any contra material. 7. Be that as it may, once it is established that the petitioner is in receipt of a monthly pension of Rs.48,000/-, there was no occasion for him to seek a reduction in the maintenance. It is also not in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32149 CRL.P No. 11768 of 2025 dispute that the respondent/wife is around 60 years of age, and considering the rising cost of living, the award of Rs.10,000/- per month can hardly be said to be excessive or unreasonable. On the contrary, it is modest and well within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The revisional court, therefore, rightly interfered with the Magistrate’s order, and its decision clearly balances the equities between the parties. The order in Crl.R.P. No.141/2023 does not occasion any prejudice to the petitioner, particularly when he continues to draw a pension of Rs.48,000/- and has not disclosed the actual quantum of lump sum retirement benefits received by him. In the considered view of this Court, the criminal petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32149 CRL.P No. 11768 of 2025 Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: BHK