- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3277 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI CHIKKASWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION NANJANGUD TOWN, MYSORE DIST - 571301 NOT CLAIMING UNDER SENIOR CITIZEN …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O CHIKKASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. SMT KANCHANADEVI D/O CHIKKASWAMY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT MIKKERE VILLAGE KIRUGAVALU HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DIST - 571430 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR BELAGUMBA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2014 IN CRL.RP.NO.182/2010 BY THE COURT OF 2nd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA WHEREBY THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2010 OF THE LEARNED JMFC MALAVALI IN CRL.MISC.NO.19/2009 WAS SET ASIDE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN CRL.P.NO.19/2009 WAS MODIFIED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PETITIONER NO.1 IN THE COURT BELOW WAS GIVEN A MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.1000 AND PETITIONER NO.2 WAS AWARDED A MAINTENANCE 1500/- PER MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner who is respondent before the trial Court, has challenged the order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- in favour of his wife and enhancing the maintenance from Rs.300/- to Rs.1,500/- p.m, in favour of his unmarried daughter by the District Court. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 3. In support of the petition, respondent has contended that petitioner No.1 is his second wife. She is an Anganawadi worker and getting salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. Now it is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- p.m. Respondent is a retired employee of KR Mills. He was granted a site by the government. Out of the benefits received from his retirement he has constructed a house. Petitioner No.1 is residing in the said house and she is capable of earning. 4. Petitioner No.2 is physically handicap. She is getting Rs.1,000/- from the Government, which is now enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. Therefore she also not entitled for any maintenance. Respondent is under the care of his first wife. The first wife and her grownup children are taking care of the respondent. The daughter of respondent through his first wife had to pledged her gold ornaments to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners to get him released from custody. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 5. Respondent is aged 85 years. He is not in a position to work and earn. He is using walking stick to move around. He is not able to sit while consuming food. He is also requires assistance for attending to his personal work including attending to the natures calls. He is also not having any income generating properties. After taking his property and when he is no longer able to earn petitioners have ousted him from the house. In the light of the same, the District Court has erred in directing him to pay maintenance to the petitioners. When respondent is not having any income and also not in a position to earn, the District Court has erred passing the impugned order and hence the petition. 6. On the other hand learned counsel representing petitioners would submit that petitioners are the legally wedded wife and daughter of Respondent. Petitioner No.2 is physically handicap. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent was registered. They led happy married life for 21 years. They are also having a son. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 Since about 10 years prior to the filing of the petition respondent developed bad habits. He failed and neglected to maintain them. Petitioners are not able to maintain themselves. 7. The statement of objections filed by respondent is inconformity with grounds urged in the present petition. 8. Before the trial Court four witnesses were examined as PW1 to 4 and EX.P1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Respondent has not led any oral evidence but got marked Ex.R1. 10. The trial Court partly allowed the petition, granting maintenance to petitioner No.2 @ Rs.300/- pm. from the date of order. 11. It dismiss the petitioner insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 12. Respondent did not challenge the order of the trial Court. Therefore, the order of the trial Court granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- to petitioner No.2 has attained finality. 13. However, petitioners approached the District Court in Crl.R.P.No.182/2010. It came to be allowed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- pm to petitioner No.1 and enhanced maintenance payable to petitioner No.2 to Rs.1,500/- 14. It is being challenged by respondent in the present petition. 15. Heard arguments and perused the record. 16. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute, even though respondent has claimed that petitioner No.1 is his second wife. This fact is established by the admission given by petitioner No.1 that when she married respondent, his son Sridhar was aged 1 year. Admittedly, Sridhar is the son of respondent through his - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 other wife. It goes to show that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was a second marriage of respondent. 17. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No.2 is a physically handicap unmarried daughter of petitioner No.1 and respondent. When the Crl.Misc.No.19/2009 was filed, respondent is shown to be 60 years of age. According to the same, now he is aged 76 years. However, learned counsel for respondent submitted that in fact the respondent age is 80 years. As per the Aadhar card his year of birth is 1948, which now makes his age 77 years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent that due to his old age, respondent is not in a position to earn and in fact he is taken care of by his other children. 18. It is also not in dispute that earlier respondent was working in K.R.Mills and after his superannuation, out of the benefits received by him, he constructed a house in the site allotted to him and at present, petitioners are staying in the said house. Other than this, admittedly, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 respondent is not having any other property or income of his own. In fact petitioners have also not produced any evidence to show that respondent is having any property to source of income. 19. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is a Anganawadi worker. Though during her cross-examination, she has denied that Anganawadi workers are paid Rs.3,000/- p.m, she has not produced documents to show the exact remuneration received by her. She has also admitted that petitioners are having a petty shop and petitioner No.2 is taking care of it. Petitioners have also not produced any documents to show the exact income received by them from the said business. 20. During her cross-examination petitioner No.1 has admitted that petitioner No.2 is getting allowance from the Government for physically handicap, though she has denied that it is at Rs.1,000/- p.m and claimed that she is getting only Rs.400/- p.m. To show the exact amount - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 received by petitioner No.2, documents are not produced. As per G.O.No.KE39MST2021, Bengaluru, dated 31.07.2021 (¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀAE 39 JªÀiïJ¸ïn 2021, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31£Éà dįÉÊ 2021.) the allowance given to persons suffering from 40-75% disability is increased from Rs.600 to Rs.800/-. 21. As per the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka in GO No.MME119ICD-2025 Bengaluru, dated 23.04.2025 (¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ªÀĪÀÄE 119 L¹r 2025, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23.04.2025) the following is the honorarium paid to the Anganawadi worker and Anganawadi assistant; UËgÀªÀzsÀ£ÀzÀ «ªÀgÀ (gÀÆ.UÀ¼À°è) ¸ÉêÁ CzsÁjvÀ UËgÀªÀzsÀ£À 2022- 23 CAiÀĪÀåAiÀÄ WÉÆõÀ£É «ªÀgÀ PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¤UÀ¢vÀ UËgÀªÀzsÀ£À PÉÃAzÀæzÀ ¥Á®Ä (60%) gÁdåzÀ ¥Á®Ä (40%) gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj UËgÀªÀzsÀ£À MlÄÖ 2025- 26£Éà ¸Á°£À CAiÀĪÀåAiÀÄ WÉÆõÀ£É MmÁÖgÉ 0-10 ªÀµÀð ¸ÉêÁªÀ¢ü (gÀÆ. 1000/-) 10 jAzÀ 20 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉêÁªÀ¢ü (gÀÆ. 1250/-) 20 ªÀµÀðUÀ½VAzÀ ªÉÄîàlÄÖ (gÀÆ. 1500/-) CA.PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð 4500 2700 1800 5500 10000 1000 11000 12000 12250 12500 CA.¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQ 2250 1350 900 3000 5250 750 6000 7000 7250 7500 22. From the material placed on record, it is evident that when the petition was filed, respondent was aged 61 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 years. He is not having any property or income of his own. He is a retired worker of K.R.Mills. He is also not entitled for any pension. Section 125 Cr.P.C creates an obligation on the husband, parents and children, who are having sufficient means, but neglects or refuses to maintain their wife, children and parents. Therefore, the prerequisite for getting relief under this provision is that the person from whom maintenance is sought should have sufficient means, but neglects or refuses to maintain the persons dependent on him. In the present case, having regard to the fact that respondent is aged and not possessing any property or income, the first portion of the requirement of Section 125 Cr.P.C is not fulfilled. It may be true that petitioners are not having sufficient income to take care of themselves. However, unless and until it is established that respondent is having sufficient means, he cannot be directed to pay maintenance. 23. The Sessions Court while considering the revision petition filed by petitioners for enhancement of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 the maintenance has appreciated the fact that respondent is not having any income or property generating income and as such he is not able to pay maintenance. However, it has observed that for maintaining the wife and children, it is not the actual income of the husband or father to be taken into consideration, but it is the capacity to earn the income which is to be considered. It may be true that in several cases, though the husband, parents or children are able to earn, but fail to work and in such situation, the Courts are required to examine the earning capacity of such person and quantify the maintenance and direct him to pay. But in the present case, when the petition was filed, respondent was already aged 61 years and retired. Now, he is in the ripe of 77 years. It is submitted that he is not able to move around independently and in fact to release him from custody, his another daughter pledged her ornaments and managed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards arrears of the maintenance. When respondent is in such a situation, it cannot be accepted that he is having earning - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 capacity, but not working. Therefore, the Sessions Court is not justified in enhancing the maintenance payable to petitioner No.2 to Rs.1,500/- p.m and granting Rs.1,000/- p.m. to petitioner No.1. Therefore, this order is required to be set aside. 24. Of course, petitioner No.2 being a handicap is also in a helpless situation. Therefore, the order of the trial Court granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- p.m. to her cannot be find fault with. Now, that petitioner is nearing 80 years, it is doubtful whether he will be in a position to pay even Rs.300/- p.m. to her. On the other hand, she is receiving the benefits from the Government and also earning by running a petty shop. Since respondent has not challenged the order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- p.m to petitioner No.2, it has attained finality. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36035 CRL.P No. 3277 of 2023 25. In the light of the above discussions, petition filed by respondent deserves to be allowed in part and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by petitioner who is respondent before the trial Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.06.2014 in Crl.RP.No.182/2010 on the file of II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Mandya is set aside. (iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE ASN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35