- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11852 CRL.P No. 101296 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101296 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MANJUNATH VASUDEV HEBBAR, A/A: 34 YEARS, PRIEST, R/O: MAHAGANAPATI TEMPLE ROAD, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: PALLAVI MANJUNATH HEBBAR, A/A: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MATTIHATTA GADDEMANE, MUNDAGANAMANE, SIRSI TALUK, ALSO 9TH CROSS, II MAIN, MUNESHWRA BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 019. … RESPONDENT (SOLE RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05/02/2020, PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.5039/2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASHING OF THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. J.M.F.C., SIRSI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.227/2014 UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C., BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11852 CRL.P No. 101296 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) This petition under Section 482 of CrPC is filed by the husband challenging the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Court of I Additional JMFC, Sirsi in Criminal Misc. No.227 of 2014, which is confirmed in Criminal Revision Petition No.5039 of 2018 by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttarakannda, Karawar, sitting at Sirsi by order dated 05.02.2020. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that respondent has her own source on income, therefore Courts below were not jsutifed in awarding maintenance to the respondent. He submits that considering the avocation of the petitioner, the maintenance awarded to the respondent is on the higher side. 4. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Petitioner is working as a priest at Bangalore and undisputedly, the respondent is staying separately. Marriage between the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11852 CRL.P No. 101296 of 2020 petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 27.05.2009 and after their relationship got strained, respondent has deserted the petitioner since he was ill-treating her. Subsequently, she has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc. No. 227 of 2014 claiming maintenance at the rate of ₹20,000/- per month. In support of her claim, she had examined herself as PW1 and also had got marked 1 document as Ex.P1. Petitioner had examined himself as RW1 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.R1 to R10. Considering the fact that respondent wife had no permanent source of income of her own and the petitioner has neglected to maintain her, the trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record has awarded a monthly maintenance of ₹3,500/- to the respondent. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.5039 of 2019, which was dismissed on 05.02.2020. 5. The petitioner has not produced any materials before the trial Court to prove that the respondent has her independent source of income. According to the petitioner, the respondent is an artist and she has acted in the TV serials etc. However, he has not produced any material to show that she has got a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11852 CRL.P No. 101296 of 2020 permanent source of income. It is under these circumstances, the trial Court has awarded a maintenance of ₹3,500/- per month to the respondent. 4. I am of the opinion that the amount of maintenance awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be excess, taking into consideration the escalation of prices and the cost of living today. The Sessions Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of maintenance awarded by the trial Court. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VMB CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 66