- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12587 CRL.P No. 6090 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6090 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI.R.YOGESH, S/O.MR.R.RAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT MANGALADEVI NAGAR, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 572 201. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.LAKSHMI DEVI FOR SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.DHRUTHI, W/O.R. YOGESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT PUTTANI NAGAR, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 572 201. 2. KUM.R.U. DIYADARSHINI, D/O.R.YOGESH AND SMT.DRUTHI, AGED ABOUT 06 YEARS, MINOR, REP BY HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. DRUTHI, R/AT PUTTANI NAGAR, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 572 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.V.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT) (R2 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12587 CRL.P No. 6090 of 2018 THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2018 IN CRL.RP.NO.168/2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI, AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2017, IN CRL.MISC.NO.105/2016, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI. BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madikeri in Crl.Misc.No.105/2016, which was confirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, dated 16.03.2018 in Crl.R.P.No.168/2017. 2. Briefly stated, the facts as pleaded are that the respondent No.1 is the wife and the respondent No.2 is the daughter of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 initiated proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12587 CRL.P No. 6090 of 2018 The trial Court after a trial held that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent No.1. However, the claim for maintenance to the respondent No.2 was rejected. The petitioner then challenged the order passed by the trial Court in Crl.R.P.No.168/2017. The District Court also rejected the revision petition in terms of the order impugned in this petition. Being aggrieved by the above orders, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 is gainfully employed and that the same was admitted by the respondent No.1 during the course of trial. She therefore contends that unless the respondent No.1 came out clean and disclosed about her employment status, the trial Court should not have granted the maintenance. She further contends that the petitioner has attempted an amicable settlement of the dispute and that the respondent No.1 has spurned all efforts made by the petitioner. She therefore contends that the respondent No.1 has voluntarily stayed away from the petitioner and hence, she is not entitled to maintenance. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12587 CRL.P No. 6090 of 2018 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is absent. 5. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 is staying away from the petitioner. Though the respondent No.1 admitted that she was employed, no effort was made to extract information from the respondent No.1 about the salary that she was earning from such employment and also whether it was sufficient. It is also not known whether the respondent No.1 was employed on a permanent basis or on temporary basis. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 was gainfully employed and therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance cannot be sustained. The further contention that the respondent No.1 has voluntarily stayed away from the petitioner and therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance, the same is also without any basis as the respondent No.1 is entitled to stay away from the petitioner for just cause. 6. In view of the above, the contentions urged by the learned counsel to the petitioner does not warrant any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12587 CRL.P No. 6090 of 2018 consideration. This apart, the trial Court has granted maintenance of only Rs.3,000/- per month, which in the present day context, is very less and inadequate. 7. In view of the above, no indulgence is warranted in this petition and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18