IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.371 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.343 OF 2025 IN CRL.RP NO.371/2025: BETWEEN: MR G.R.NAGABHUSHAN@ NAGABHUSHANA, S/O G N RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 181/302, SURVEY NO.302, KANCHUGARNAHALLI, GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAMANAGARA - 562019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PAWADEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS JYOTHI N, W/O G.R.NAGABHUSHAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, P & T LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 043. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI A D RAMANANDA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE 2 THE ORDER DATED 4.06.2024 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.113/2024 BY THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT I, AT MAYOHALL, BENGALURU AND THEREBY MODIFYING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.25295/2024, ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-74) AND ALLOW THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. IN CRL.RP NO.343/2025: BETWEEN: MRS JYOTHI N, W/O G.R.NAGABHUSHAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, P & T LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 043. ...PETITIONER (BY A D RAMANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: MR G.R.NAGABHUSHAN @ NAGABHUSHANA, S/O G N RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 181/302, SURVEY NO.302, KANCHUGARNAHALLI, GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAMANAGARA - 562019. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PAWADEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF INTERIM MAINTENANCE PASSED BY LEARNED LXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BANGALORE IN CRL APPEAL NO 25295/2024 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 FOR REDUCING THE INTERIM ORDER 3 OF MAINTENANCE FROM RS.1,25,000/- TO RS.60,000/- VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04TH AUGUST, 2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CAV ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition No.343/2025 is filed by the wife against the husband assailing the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.25295/2024. 2. The Criminal Revision Petition No.371/2025 is filed by the husband against the wife assailing the very same order passed in Criminal Appeal No.25295/2024. 3. In terms of the impugned order, the Appellate Court has reduced the monthly maintenance to Rs.60,000/- per month from Rs.1,25,000/- per month passed by the Trial Court in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act, 2005') in Crl. Misc.No.113/2024 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. 4 4. The wife is before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.343/2025 on the premise that the Appellate Court could not have reduced the monthly maintenance amount. 5. The husband is before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.371/2025 on the premise that the monthly maintenance awarded is on higher side. 6. The relationship of the parties to the proceeding is not in dispute. 7. It is relevant to notice that the Trial Court on 04.06.2024 passed an ex-parte order against the husband to pay maintenance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- per month. The respondent/ husband in the said petition before the Trial Court, did not file statement of objection and did not seek for modification of the ex-parte order or rejection of the application seeking interim maintenance. The husband filed Criminal Appeal No.25294/2024. 8. In terms of the impugned order, the Appellate Court has observed that the wife is receiving Rs.40,000/- per 5 month from the husband and she is receiving Rs.25,000/- per month from her parents and brother. 9. The Appellate Court has also taken note of the income of the husband reflected in the Income Tax Returns for the year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. Thereafter, the Appellate Court has held that the wife is entitled to Rs.60,000/- per month from the husband. 10. Learned counsel for the husband urged that the maintenance of Rs.60,000/- is excessive and unjustified. Learned counsel for the wife urged that the maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month is wholly inadequate and the husband has contracted a second marriage when first marriage is still subsisting. 11. Both parties have produced certain records in support of their respective claims. 12. This Court notices that the order dated 04.06.2024 is an ex-parte order which is capable of modification by the same Court. The husband filed appeal against ex-parte order granting interim monthly maintenance in favour of the wife. 6 13. The Appellate Court has decided the matter on merits and directed payment of Rs.60,000/- per month towards interim maintenance till the disposal of the petition. 14. The approach of the Appellate Court is wholly erroneous. The Appellate Court could not have decided the husband's claim without there being the statement of objection and full disclosure of assets and liability as held by the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha1. By doing so, the Appellate Court has taken away the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to consider the applicant's plea for interim maintenance on merits. Hence, the order of the Appellate Court is to be set-aside. Accordingly, set-aside. 15. It is also observed that the order passed by the Trial Court is also not the final order. It is an ex-parte order capable of further modification in favour of the applicant or the opponent, on the application by the husband who is respondent before the Trial Court. 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 7 16. Under these circumstances, the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court and shall furnish the affidavits relating to assets and liabilities in terms of the guideline stipulated in Rajnesh supra. Thereafter, the Trial Court has to pass appropriate orders on the application seeking interim relief. 17. It is made clear that this order should not be construed in any way as this Court having expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter on either of the parties to the proceedings. 18. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 19. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition No.343/2025 filed by wife is allowed in part. (ii) The Criminal Revision Petition No.371/2025 filed by husband is dismissed. (iii) The impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.25295/2024 by the learned LXXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH.74) is set-aside. 8 (iv) The parties to the proceeding shall file affidavit relating to assets and liabilities before the Trial Court, in terms of the guidelines in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], within 15 days from the date of this order. (v) The Trial Court shall consider the plea for interim maintenance based on the materials on record and pass appropriate order. (vi) Considering the fact that the application seeking interim relief is filed in 2024, the parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the interim application. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/BRN