- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 928 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.928 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MR. M. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT OLD NO.16, “NANDHINI RESIDENCY”, 3RD CROSS, 3RD FLOOR, AREHALLI, WARD NO.184, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560061. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. S.B. LAKSHMAMMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. REKHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O MR. JAYARAM. 2. KUM. KUMARASWAMY N., AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, S/O SMT. REKHA. RESPONDENT-2 MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. REKHA. BOTH ARE R/AT NO.905, TOWER-9, PRESTIGE BAGAMANE TEMPLE BELLS, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, BENGALURU-560060. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 928 of 2026 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 04.06.2026 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.P.NO.904/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, WHICH WAS FILED UNDER SECTION 125(3) WHICH WAS ARISING OUT OF CRL.MISC.P.NO.690/2015 OF CR.PC BEFORE SAME LEARNED TRIAL COURT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This petition is listed with office objection regarding maintainability of revision petition and other office objections. 2. Having considered the material on record, this revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.904/2022 and the record discloses that I.A.No.10 is filed by the respondent therein under Sections 91, 391, 125(3) of Cr.P.C. and also invoking Sections 94, 432, 144 to 147 of BNSS, 2023 seeking permission to produce the documents as additional evidence accompanied by an affidavit. The petitioner therein orally objected the application. The Trial Court taken note of that Crl.Misc.No.904/2022 is filed for recovery of arrears of maintenance based on order passed in Crl.Misc.No.690/2015. The Trial Court also taken note of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 928 of 2026 powers of the Court under the present petition is limited only for the recovery of arrears of maintenance from the respondent and the present application filed by the respondent to produce the documents in evidence is outside the scope of the petition and hence, rejected the application. The records also disclose that earlier there was a compromise between the parties in Crl.Misc.No.690/2015, wherein the respondent therein had agreed to maintain the petitioners and the respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners as monthly maintenance charges. Both the parties had agreed and undertaken that they will not assault or they will not give any type of troubles to each other in future. The petitioner No.1 had agreed for the said maintenance amount, as agreed to give by the respondent. The respondent had undertaken to pay the amount on or before 10th of every month without fail. 3. Later on, this order was challenged by the respondent by filing Crl.Misc.105/2018 questioning the very compromise and the Trial Court considering the same, dismissed Crl.Misc.No.105/2018 observing that instead of challenging the same in the recovery proceedings, the petitioner has dumped all the documents. The Trial Court, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 928 of 2026 particularly taken note of scope of recovery proceedings is only for recovery. Instead of paying the maintenance as agreed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties in Crl.Misc.No.690/2015, the petitioner is not only harassing the respondent, but even abused the Court process by challenging the compromise petition by filing Crl.Misc.No.105/2018 and without challenging the same, once again abused the process by dumping the documents in a recovery proceedings. When such order has been passed, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court in passing such an order and scope of revision is very limited and considering the very conduct of the revision petitioner, it is nothing but an abuse of process not only before the Trial Court, but even before this Court challenging the very same order. Hence, this petition is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- payable at the Registry within one week from today. If the cost is not paid within one week, list this matter before this Court on 22.06.2026. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11