- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23402 CRL.RP No. 312 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 312 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SATHISH S/O LATE KALYANIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A HARVEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNASURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK HUDDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: JYOTHI W/O SATHISH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY H.C, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN IN CRL.A. NO.71/2025 AT ANNEXURE A, AND THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LD. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ARAKALGUD IN CRL.MISC.NO.292/2014. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23402 CRL.RP No. 312 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Abhishek Huddar learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. None appears for the respondent. 3. Husband filed this revision petition challenging the order of grant of maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.292/2014 filed under the Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DV Act') dated 15.04.2025 which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2025. 4. The learned Trial Magistrate after issuing the notice noted that marriage stands established and there was a child born in the said marriage and taking note of the rival contentions of the parties, ordered some of Rs.5,000/- as the monthly maintenance in lieu of shared residence and for the Domestic Violence. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23402 CRL.RP No. 312 of 2026 5. While so passing the Order, Court also noted that the respondent who is the Revision petitioner did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 6. Order of the Trial Magistrate was subject matter of the appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.71/2025. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records re-appreciated the matter and dismissed the appeal. 7. While so dismissing, the First Appellate Court has noted that prima facie the documents placed on record by the revision petitioner would show that he has suffered disability and is taking disability allowance from the Government which was in the year 2023. First Appellate Court also noted that nothing prevented the petitioner to participate in the proceedings from the year 2014 to 2023 and to pay the accrued maintenance. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, husband is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23402 CRL.RP No. 312 of 2026 9. Sri. Abhishek Huddar learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that petitioner is now not able to work on account of the disability which he suffered in his spinal cord and he is drawing the disability allowance and therefore, order of the Trial Magistrate would act harsh on the revision petitioner and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. In the light of the argument put forthwith on behalf of the petitioner, this Court pursued the material on record meticulously. 11. Admittedly the records that was placed before the First Appellate Court would establish that the petitioner has suffered the disability is in the year 2023. 12. But, the year 2014 to 2023 except payment of Rs.20,000/- no other amount is paid by the petitioner towards the maintenance which has now accrued in the arrears of more than Rs.6,00,000/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23402 CRL.RP No. 312 of 2026 13. It is always open for the petitioner to place the medical records before the Trial Magistrate and seek modification of the order or work out the remedy as to payment of maintenance in terms of the property which is said to have been jointly mutated in the name of the petitioner and respondent. 14. Reserving such liberty for the petitioner, this Court does not find any reasons to admit the revision petition for further consideration. Accordingly, following:- ORDER Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 44