- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40253 CRL.RP No. 1510 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1510 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHIVARAJ KUMAR C S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT KARIM SONNENA HALLI (ANJANA MURTHY NAGAR), MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARESH KUMAR P.C, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. DIVYA SHREE. D W/O SHIVARAJ KUMAR C C/O DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR GANDI CIRCLE, PATTALAMMA BADAVANE, MALURU TOWN, KOLARA DISTRICT - 563 130. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.06.2025 AND ORDER OF FLW DATED 27.09.2025 PASSED Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40253 CRL.RP No. 1510 of 2025 BY THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALUR IN CMC NO.166/2025 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 25.06.2025 an ex parte order directing petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and order dated 27.09.2025 issuing FLW against petitioner for non-appearance. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted, insofar as order dated 25.06.2025, this Court in Crl.R.P.no.1254/2025 disposed of on 22.08.2025 had permitted petitioner therein to move an application before Trial Court for modification of order and directed Trial Court to pass orders, taking note of guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another reported in (2021)2 Supreme Court Cases 324. As guidelines were not followed, impugned order would warrant interference. Insofar as order dated 27.09.2025, it was submitted that petitioner's address - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40253 CRL.RP No. 1510 of 2025 mentioned in petition filed by respondent under Section 144 of BNSS was incomplete and therefore, summons was not served. Consequently, in absence of proper service of summons, order issuing FLW would be contrary to law and seeks for setting aside of same. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused material available on record. 4. A perusal of order relied upon would indicate that in a Revision Petition filed against an ex parte order of interim maintenance, this Court had permitted petitioner to move an application before Trial Court itself for modification. Even in instant matter, petitioner would have such liberty. 5. Even insofar as order dated 27.09.2025 it is seen that on notice issued by RPAD returning as unclaimed, Trial Court issued FLW to respondent. Same as returnable by 15.11.2025. Since there is sufficient time, it would only be appropriate for petitioner to appear before Trial Court and file application for modification or recall of impugned orders. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40253 CRL.RP No. 1510 of 2025 6. With above observations, Revision Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15