Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18966 (KAR)

SRI.RAHUL @ RAHUL GUPTA v. SMT.RUPALI @ RUPALI GUPTA

CRL.RP/258/2023 · 2026-06-03

H P Sandesh

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26117 CRL.RP No. 258 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.258 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI RAHUL @ RAHUL GUPTA S/O LATE RAMBABU GUPTA AGED 32 YEARS WORKING AT: SOLARIS BUILDING NO.1, D-WING 3RD AND 5TH FLOOR SAKI VIHAR ROAD ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI – 400 072 …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGARAJA B ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.RUPALI @ RUPALI GUPTA W/O RAHUL GUPTA AGED 31 YEARS RUPALI GUPTA R/AT NO.99/1, 2ND CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD MUNIKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT KANAKANAGAR BANGALORE 560072 AND ALSO AT BELOW MENTIONED ADDRESS: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26117 CRL.RP No. 258 of 2023 2. SMT. MITHILESH GUPTA W/O LATE RAMBABU GUPTA AGED 70 YEARS 3. SRI RAJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE RAMBABU GUPTA AGED 38 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT SABAZI MANDI ROAD NAGAJI DHAAM (PORSA) ZILLA MORENA MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R PRASANNA RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 12, 307, 401 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.719/2020 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26117 CRL.RP No. 258 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026 for recalling the bailable warrant issued to the revision petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Session Judge in Criminal Appeal No.719/2020 it discloses that the Sessions Judge taken note of the relationship between the parties as husband and wife and petition was earlier filed under DV Act. In paragraph 15, the Sessions Court taken note of the fact that the respondent was working at Mumbai as Senior Accountant and getting approximate salary of Rs.7,00,000/- per annum and document was summoned under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. as Ex.P5. On perusal of the same, it discloses that the annual salary of the respondent as of 31.08.2017 is Rs.5,45,016/- which is in contradiction with the income claimed by the petitioner. The petition was filed in the year 2015 and that salary was of the year 2017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26117 CRL.RP No. 258 of 2023 4. The counsel for the revision petitioner submits that now, the petitioner has lost the job and he is unemployed and same cannot be a ground to decrease the maintenance amount. Even a husband who is not having any job, it is his bounden duty to provide maintenance to the wife. When such being the case, awarding of Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance is not exorbitant. 5. The counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that even inspite of the order to pay the maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month, till not paid the entire amount and still there are arrears of amount and the same is not in dispute. 6. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that already made the payment of Rs.3,08,000/- that is 50% of the amount as directed by this Court while staying the impugned order and still there are arrears of maintenance amount. 7. The Court has to take note of standard of living. It is highly impossible to lead a life with the amount of Rs.3,000/- and the Appellate Court also having considered the present - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26117 CRL.RP No. 258 of 2023 standard of living as well as cost of living directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month and the same is not exorbitant as contended by the petitioner counsel. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Court in directing to pay the maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 8. In view of the dismissal of the revision petition, I.A.No.1/2026 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN