- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15056 CRL.P No. 1736 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1736 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANDALAPPA, S/O M.M. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, R/AT AJJAMPURA VILLAGE AND POST, AJJAMPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577547. 2. T. GOPALAPPA S/O. M.M. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT SHANKARAGHATTA VILLAGE AND POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 451. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR D.K., ADVOCATE AND: SMT. PREMALEELA, W/O MANDALAPPA, HOUSEWIFE, R/AT 3RD CROSS, NEHRUNAGAR, BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK - 577 548. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (528 BNSS) PRAYING TO A) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17-04-2025 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO. 337/2023 PASSED BY THE IIIRD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT KADUR AND B) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04-12-2025 IN CRL. R.P. NO. 75/2025 AND 76/2025 PASSED BY THE IIND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PETITION AND ETC. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15056 CRL.P No. 1736 of 2026 THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers: "a) Call for the record in Crl. Misc. No. 337/2023 on the file of IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C at Kadur and in Crl. R.P. No. 75/2025 & Crl. R.P.No. 76/2025 on the file of IInd Addl. District & Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru and; b) Set-aside the order dated 17-04-2025 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 337/2023 passed by the IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C at Kadur and; c) Set-aside the order dated 04-12-2025 in Crl. R.P. No. 75/2025 & 76/2025 passed by the IInd Addl. District & Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru by allowing the present Criminal Petition. d) Pass such other suitable order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems it appropriate in the fact and circumstance of the case, in the ends of justice." 2. Heard Sri.Kiran Kumar D.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and have perused the material on record. 3. The respondent files a Criminal Miscellaneous No.241/2019 against the petitioner-husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15056 CRL.P No. 1736 of 2026 maintenance amount that was sought was Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the petition till her re-marriage. The husband failed to make those payments and the wife was constrained to file Crl.Misc.No.337/2023 under Section 128 of the Cr.P.C., seeking a direction at the hands fo the concerned Court to pay arrears of Rs.7,32,500/-. The wife files an application under Section 431 read with Sections 128 and 421 of the Cr.P.C. to attach and sell the property bearing Sy.No.42/1 for the purpose of recovery of the amount. This is allowed by the concerned Court by the following order: ORDERS ON APPLICATION DATED 6.03.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 431 READ WITH SECTION 128 AND 421 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. The Petitioner has filed present application praying to realize the arrears of maintenance amount in terms of Section 431 Cr.P.C. by following procedure contemplated under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. 2. In the application, it is stated by the petitioner that, this Court in Crl.Misc No. 214/2019 has passed Order directing the Respondent to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Despite of the Order, the Respondent did not make payment towards the maintenance amount. Therefore, the Petitioner constrained to file present petition to recover the maintenance amount. The Respondent is having landed property along with his brother in Sy. No. 42/1 of Handi Village, Ajjampura Hobli and Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. At the present a sum of Rs. 7,32,500/- is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15056 CRL.P No. 1736 of 2026 pending as arrears of maintenance amount. Hence, prayed to allow the application. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent has filed statement of objection contending that, the Respondent is paying a sum of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner on every hearing dates and the petitioner is having sufficient income to maintain her. The Respondent is undergoing dialysis and incurring expenses of Rs.4,000/- every day. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Heard, Arguments from both side. Perused material available on record. 5. The following points would arise for consideration of this Court. 1. Whether the petitioner made out grounds to allow the present I.A? 2. What Order? 6. My answer to the point No.1 is in the affirmative for the following; R E A S O N S 7. Point No.1:- The Respondent not disputed the order passed in Crl. Mic No.214/2019 and not disputed the amount towards the arrears of the maintenance payable to the petitioner. The only contention of the respondent is that the property which is stands in the joint names of the Respondent and his brother. The respondent is paying a sum of Rs. 5000/- on every month. On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that, out of the arrears of amount, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner, which meager amount as against the arrears of maintenance amount. It is true that, the property is standing in the joint names of the respondent and his brother. However, there is no bar under Cr.P.C. to proceed with the property only to the extent of shares of the respondent over the property. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15056 CRL.P No. 1736 of 2026 8. Point No.2: in the result, I proceed to pass following O R D E R By exercising power conferred under section 429 1(b) of Cr.P.C., Office is directed to issue warrant along with copy of the petition and RTC for recovery of fine in Form No. 44 appended to II Schedule of Cr.P.C., to the Deputy commissioner, Chikkamagaluru to deposit the amount recovered by sale the share of the Respondent in property bearing Sy. No. 42/1, measuring 4.25 acres situated at Hanni Village, Ajjampura Hobli, Ajjampura Taluk. Await Report by 30.06.2025." 4. This is called in question before the Court of Session in Criminal Revision Petition No.75/2025. The order quoted hereinabove comes to be affirmed by the Court of Session on the following reasons: REASONS 10. Point No.1 :- The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner would submit that the land bearing Sy.No.42/1 measuring 4 acre 25 guntas of Hanne Village of Ajjampura Hobli and Taluk is not situated in Handi Village, but it is situated in Hanne Village of Ajjampura Hobli and Taluk and said property is standing in the joint name of Shrinivasa, Gopalappa and Mandalappa and the petitioner had ¼th share in the said property, but the entire property has been attached. It is further argued that without the demarcation of the property, the property cannot be auctioned and accordingly, prayed for allowing the petition. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial court by considering the nature of the petition and also the liability to pay the maintenance on the part of revision petitioner has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15056 CRL.P No. 1736 of 2026 rightly passed an order directing the Deputy Commissioner to recover the arrears of maintenance as arrears of land revenue and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 12. With the rival contentions urged by both sides, it is just and necessary to go through the materials available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner had instituted petition before the learned III Addl., Civil Judge and JMFC., Kadur in Crl.Mis.337/2023 under section 128 of Cr.P.C., for recovery of arrears of maintenance of Rs.7,32,500/- for the period from 01.03.2017 to 03.07.2023 in accordance with the order passed by the said court in Crl.Mis.No.214/2019. The certified copy of the order sheet in Crl.Mis.337/2023 produced on record would goes to show that the said petition was instituted on 04.08.2023 and as on the date of passing impugned order, the petitioner had only paid sum of Rs.15,000/- towards petition claim of Rs.7,32,500/-. Since, the respondent had failed to pay the petition claim, the petitioner had filed application under section 431 R/w section 128 and 421 of Cr.P.C., praying for recovery of arrears of maintenance through Deputy Commissioner as arrears of land revenue. The said application was contested by the respondent/husband on the ground that he is regularly paying maintenance and petitioner is having sufficient income. After hearing both sides, the trial court by exercising the powers conferred under section 429(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., had issued warrant authorizing the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru to recover the petition claim. As I have already stated above, the respondent has come up with instant revision petition with a specific claim that the property sought to be attached is jointly standing in the name of respondent and some other persons, hence the said property cannot be attached. 13. I have carefully gone through the RTC extract produced by the petitioner before the trial court, wherein it discloses that the land bearing Sy.No.42/1 measuring 4 acre 25 guntas is jointly standing in the name of one Shrinvasa A.S. S/o Late.Sanna Hanumappa, T.Gopalappa S/o Late.Thimappa and T.Mandalappa S/o Late.Thimmappa. The contents of RTC extract clearly goes to show that the respondent has got right of share in the said property. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15056 CRL.P No. 1736 of 2026 respondent in his petition nowhere stated that he has no right, title or interest over the above said landed property sought to be attached. Since, the right of the respondent over the said landed property has not been disputed by the respondent in a specific terms, the petitioner being the wife of the respondent has got every right to enforce the order of maintenance through Deputy Commissioner to recover the arrears in accordance with law. 14. Since the respondent has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned Trial Court at this stage, it is just and necessary to go through the principles laid down in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court (2015) 6 SCC 353 (Bhuvan Mohan Singh V./s Meena and others). In the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the difficulty in enforcement of the order of maintenance awarded by the Courts in various enactments including Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and passed several directions by exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment it is held that, the enforcement / execution of order of maintenance, an order of decree of maintenance may be enforced under section 28A of Hindu Marriage act, section 20(6) of D.V. Act and section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. It is also held that the order of maintenance can be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of CPC., more particularly, section 51, 55, 58, 60 R/w Order 21. 15. In the present case on hand, the learned III Addl., Civil Judge and JMFC., Kadur considered the application filed by the petitioner seeking enforcement of order of maintenance and to recover the petition claim as arrears of land revenue to the extent of share of husband of petitioner shown in the RTC extract. Inspite of passing of order of maintenance in favour of the petitioner, the respondent has failed to pay maintenance and total amount of Rs.7,32,500/- was due from him as on 2023. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court passed the impugned order by rejecting the contention raised by the respondent. It was contended before the trial court that the property was not standing in the name of respondent and his family members are having interest - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15056 CRL.P No. 1736 of 2026 over the same. The respondent has not produced materials before this court to show that the order to proceed against the respondent for recovery of arrears of maintenance to an extent of share of respondent over the landed property. Further there is no bar under Cr.P.C., to recover arrears of maintenance by taking steps against respondent property to an extent of his share. 16. The Trial Court by considering the nature of petition and also keeping in mind the livelihood of the aged petitioner has rightly passed an order to proceed against the property of respondent. Therefore, there is absolutely no materials before this court to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, this point is answered in the Negative. 17. Point No.2 :- In view of my foregoing reasons while answering above point, I proceed to pass the following – O R D E R The revision petition filed under Section 438 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is hereby DISMISSED. The impugned order of III Addl., Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chikkamagaluru in Crl.Misc.No.337/2023 dated 17.04.2025 is hereby confirmed. Consign the copy of this order to the Trial Court" 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner-husband has failed to clear the arrears of Rs.7,32,000/-, as was ordered by the concerned Court in Miscellaneous Application filed by the wife under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Left with no choice, the application had to be filed seeking attachment of the property - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15056 CRL.P No. 1736 of 2026 of the husband towards recovery. In the light of the conduct of the petitioner-husband in evading payment of maintenance to the wife contrary to the orders passed by the concerned Courts, there is no warrant of interference. With the well reasoned orders of both the courts, the petition stands dismissed. As a consequence, I.A.No.1/2026 is disposed. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72