- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5540 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI P V PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O P.R. VENUGOPAL, ALL ARE R/OF 1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGARA, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PARIKSHIT S S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A PRAVEENA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O P.V. PRABHAR. 2. RAKSHITHA Petition, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O P.V. PRABHAKAR, R/OF D. NO. 955, CORONATION ROAD, TIPTUR TALUK, UMAKURU DISTRICT-572201. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2026 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, SITTING AT TIPTUR, IN CRL.RP.NO.10005/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2024 PASSED BY Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR, IN C.MIS.NO.152/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN C.MIS.NO.152/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner – husband is before this Court calling in question twin orders, one passed on 30.12.2024, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, in Crl.Misc.No.152/2017 and another on 31.01.2026, passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, sitting at Tiptur, in Crl.R.P.No.10005/2025. 2. Heard Sri Parikshit S.S., learned counsel for petitioner. Notice to respondents is not issued. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: First respondent is the wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2, the daughter. The marriage between the two, is now three decades old. When the parents of the petitioner ill-treated respondent Nos.1 and 2 - wife and children - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 on the alleged physical and mental cruelty, respondents left the matrimonial house and seek decree of divorce in M.C.No.12/2004. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the said matter. Respondent No.1 - wife files an application seeking maintenance from the hands of the husband at ₹5,000/- p.m., to each of the respondents in the petition. In the interregnum, M.C.No.12/2004 is allowed and the marriage with the petitioner is dissolved in terms of the order of the concerned Court dated 20.03.2016. After the dissolution of the marriage, it transpires that an order is passed by the concerned Court granting maintenance to be paid at ₹4,000/- p.m. each, while answering Crl.Misc.152/2017. The order reads as follows: “7. POINT NO. 1: According to the petitioner, the petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent and petitioner No.2 and 3 are their daughters. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with respondent took place on 20.08.1995 at Gurubhavana Kalyana Mantapa, Turuvekere and after her marriage, she and respondent were living together for a period of one year happily and afterwards, the parents of respondent ill treated her and subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner born on 14.05.1998, 3rd petitioner was born on 11.06.2003. Thereafter the respondent deserted the petitioners at the ill advice of his parents and therefore, the petitioners are residing separately since February 2016 at Tiptur Town at the parents house of of petitioner No.1 at Gandhinagara, Tiptur. The respondent has forced the petitioner No.1 to give consent for dissolution of the marriage and filed a case in MC.No.12/2014 by making - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 false allegations against the petitioner No.1. The respondent told the petitioner that he was going to withdraw the petition and by believing the words respondent, the petitioner has not contested the case and he took exparte orders and thereafter, the petitioner has filed a petition to set-aside the said proceeding before the court. The petitioner No.2 and 3 are studying and the petitioner No.1 is housewife and therefore, it is not possible to them to maintain themselves and respondent being the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.2 and 3 is duty bound to maintain them. 8. The petitioner has produced marriage Invitation card as per Ex.PI and Ex.P2 is the G.Tree certificate. Though the respondent has contested the case by taking a defence that the petitioner No.1 has subjected him to both physical and mental cruelty and he himself suffered a lot of mental agony and torture in the hands of petitioner No.1 but, he has not denied the relationship between him and petitioners. The respondent has further stated that the petitioner No.1 picked up quarrel with him and driven him away from the house. However, he has not at all produced any material before the court to say that he was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty and also he was driven away by the petitioner No. 1. The respondent has also taken a defence that he obtained a decree of divorce in MC.No.12/2014 and the marriage was dissolved and therefore, he is not bound to pay maintenance but, the petitioner has clearly stated that the said decree of divorce was an exparte decree and she filed a petition to set aside the order passed in the said case. This fact clearly discloses that the case In MC.No.12/2014 has not been reached to finality. 9. The evidence of both petitioners and respondent shows that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent and petitioner No.2 and 3 are daughters. It also shows that the respondent and petitioners are residing separately since several years. As such, it is a clear cut case of desertion. Though the respondent has stated that he was deserted by the petitioner No.1 but, there is no such material before the court to say that the petitioner No.1 deserted him but, the available material placed by the petitioner shows that the respondent deserted the petitioners. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 10. The petitioners have stated that they are unable to maintain themselves, as the petitioner No.1 is house wife and she is not a working woman and petitioner No.2 and 3 students. However, the respondent has not at all dented this aspect either in evidence affidavit or in the objections. Moreover, there is no material before this court to say that the petitioners are having Independent income to maintain themselves. 11. The respondent has not at all placed any material before this court to say that he was providing food and shelter to the petitioners. He himself has admitted that the petitioners are not staying with him and this fact itself clearly shows that the respondent had never provided maintenance to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent has not at all elicited any thing from the mouth of the PW-1 to say that she left the house voluntarily or she herself deserted the respondent. After considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that the respondent has deserted the petitioners and also neglected to maintain them. The respondent being the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioner No.2 and 3 is duty bound to provide maintenance to them and accordingly. I have answered the point No.1 in the Affirmative. 12. Point No.2 and 3:- The petitioner No.1 has clearly stated that she and other petitioners are residing separately with her old aged parents under their sympathy and she is not a working lady and also she has stated that the petitioner No.2 and 3 are students. This fact clearly discloses that the petitioners are not having any income for their maintenance. 13. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner No.2 has got married and the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed memo by stating that the petitioner No.2 is not claiming maintenance and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim maintenance. As such, her claim is dismissed. 14. The respondent being the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.3 is duty bound to provide maintenance to them. The respondent has failed to prove that the petitioner No.1 and 3 are having sufficient income and also they are in a position - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 to maintain themselves and therefore, the contention taken by the respondent is not sustainable. 15. As already discussed above, the petitioner No.1 and 3 have proved that the respondent is having sufficient income to provide maintenance and therefore, the petitioner No. 1 and 3 are entitled for maintenance. However, the petitioners have sought for the monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each which is exorbitant and the petitioner No.1 and 3 have not proved that the respondent is having that much of income to give monthly maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/ each. On considering the status of the respondent and also considering the requirement of the petitioners, it just and fair to grant a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each to the petitioner No.1 and 3 which will meet the ends of justice. In view of the above discussed reasons and findings, I have answered the point No.2 in the Affirmative and point No.3 in the Partly Affirmative.” (Emphasis added) 3.1. Challenging the said order, the petitioner files a revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.10005/2025. The revisional Court dismissed the petition confirming the order of the concerned Court, in terms of the order dated 31.01.2026. It reads as follows: “9) POINT No.1 & 2: The petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the order passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur in Crl.Misc. No.152/2017 dated 30.12.2024 directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4.000/- each to respondent no. 1 and 2 from the date of filing petition till the lifetime of respondent no. 1 and till respondent no. 2 attains majority or till her marriage. The petitioner has addressed the arguments contending that the order passed by the trial Court is against the principles of natural justice and the same has to be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 reviewed and also has further contended that the order passed by the trial Court directing petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each to respondents from the date of filing of petition till lifetime of respondent no.1 and till respondent no. 2 attains majority or till her marriage is opposed to law and also has further contented that the allegations made by the respondent no. 1 before the trial Court with respect to cruelty and harassment are false and the respondent no.1 has not proved the same before the trial Court and has further contended that the respondents were not treated with cruelty or physical or mental harassment at any point of time by the petitioner. The petitioner has also contended that the respondent no.1 herself is a quarrelsome lady and left the company of petitioner without reason and the petitioner himself was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally and he has suffered lot of mental agony and torture at the hands of respondent no.1 and during August 2013 the respondent no.1 picked up quarrel with the petitioner and she has thrown out the petitioner from her house and she threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and said that she will commit suicide if he returns to her house. The petitioner counsel has also contended that the petitioner without any alternative started to live along with his parents at their house and the Respondent no.1 has deserted the petitioner without any valid cause or reason. The petitioner counsel has also contended that the petitioner has filed the petition for divorce before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Tiptur in MC No. 12/2014 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 28.09.1995 was dissolved. In view of the said fact, the divorced wife is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent. The petitioner submits that he is leading his life by doing a workshop business and the petitioner is unable to lead life and the petitioner is not capable to pay maintenance amount as ordered by the trial Court, as he has no source of income as stated by the respondent no.1 and also has further contented that the trial Court without looking into documents produced by the respondents has wrongly come to the conclusion while passing the order and the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the documents produced by the petitioner. The petitioner counsel further submits that the observation made by the trial Court while granting the relief to the respondents is only regarding relationship and grievance of respondents. It has not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 observed the status and source of income of the petitioner. The petitioner counsel contended that the trial Court was not right in granting maintenance and directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/-each when the respondent no. 2 has already attained majority since she was born on 23.12.2003. The petitioner has also contended that the reasons given by the trial Court are not proper and not based on materials produced before the trial Court is contrary to law and the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Tiptur in Cri.Misc. No. 152/2017 dated 30.12.2024. 10) The respondent counsel has addressed the arguments contending that the relationship between the parties is not disputed. Respondent no. 1 is the wife of petitioner and respondent no. 2 is the daughter of petitioner and the marriage of respondent. No. 1 and petitioner took place on 28.09.1995 at Gurubhavana Kalyana Mantapa, Turuvekre and they were living together for a period of 1 year happily and the parents of the petitioner ill-treated respondent no. 1 and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and there-after the Petitioner's daughter was born on 14.05.1998 and the present second respondent was born on 11.06.2003. The respondent counsel has also contented that thereafter the petitioner deserted the respondent no.1 at the ill-advice of his parents and thereafter the respondent no.1 is residing separately since February 2016 at Tiptur town at the parents' house at Gandhinagar, Tiptur. The respondent counsel has also further contented that the order passed by the trial Court considering the evidence on record and the documents produced by petitioner and respondents. As such the order passed by the trial Court granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each to present respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 is Just and proper and also as further contented that the order passed by the trial Court is reasonable. As such, the respondents prays to dismiss the present revision petition. 11) On perusal of the records, it is noted that respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2/the petitioners no. 1 and no. 3 before the trial Court in Crl.Misc. No. 152/2017 had filed the petition against the present petitioner/respondent seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. The case of the Respondent no. 1 is that she is the wife of petitioner and they are having children, two daughters and the marriage of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 respondent no. 1 took place with petitioner on 28.09.1995 at Gurubhavana Kalyana Mantapa, Turuvekre and after marriage she and the petitioner were residing together for a period of 1 year happily and after the parents of petitioner ill-treated and subjected to both physical and mental cruelty and after the ill-advice of the petitioner's parents, the petitioner and respondent no. 1 started residing separately since February 2016 and the Respondent no. 1 was residing At Gandhinagar Tiptur at her parents house. The petitioner had also filed the divorce petition in MC No.12/2014 by making false allegation against respondent no. 1 and the said divorce petition has been allowed ex parte divorce decree is granted and the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 had filed the petition before the trial court seeking maintenance from the present petitioner. The respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has contented that the petitioner is running a xerox and lamination shop in his own building at SKPT Road, Tiptur and he is having money lending business and having sufficient source of means to provide maintenance to respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2. The present petitioner/respondent, having appeared before the trial Court, had filed objections and has contested the petition in Crime No.152/2017. Respondent no.1/petitioner No.1 in Crime No. 152/2017 has got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 documents and the present petitioner/respondent before the trial Court has also got examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 documents in support of his case. The trial Court having considered evidence of both the petitioners and the relationship of the parties having not been disputed and the contention of the present petitioner is that he had already obtained the divorce against respondent no. 1 in MC No. 12/2014 and as such, he is not bound to pay maintenance to respondent no. 1 and respondent no. out 2 having already attained the age of majority. He is not bound to maintain them by paying the maintenance as awarded by the trial Court a sum of Rs.4,000 each/- 12) On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the PWI having led evidence got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 documents and the respondent/the present petitioner having led evidence before the trial Court as RW1 has produced and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 documents in support of his defence. The documents produced by the present petitioner, which has been marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R10. shows that he has paid the educational expenses of both the children and also the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 documents show that he has paid the school fees of both the children and also in the present case, the respondent/present petitioner has not produced any documents to show that the respondent no. I is remarried and the respondent no.2 has been married and she is working. Respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are entitled for the maintenance as ordered by the trial court, as the respondent no. 1 has not remarried after the decree of divorce and the respondent no. 2, though has attained the majority, she is not married. The respondent/present petition has not placed any materials before the court to show that he has paid the maintenance as per the order passed by the trial Court dated 30.12.2024. Though the present petitioner has challenged the said order before this court, the petitioner being the husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondent no. 2 is duty bound to provide maintenance to them. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that he has no sufficient income. The documents produced by the present petitioner before the trial Court shows that he has borne the educational expenses of both the children. As such, the amount awarded by the trial Court is sum of Rs.4,000 each to the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 is not huge amount as such the amount awarded by the trial Court a sum of Rs.4.000/- each to respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 is not exorbitant and It is just and fair maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court. As such the present petitioner has not made out sufficient grounds to allow the petition. Hence in view of the said observation, I answer point No.1 and point No.2 partly in the Negative.” (Emphasis added) Therefore, the petitioner is before the Court challenging the said orders granting maintenance of ₹4,000/- per month each, to the wife and daughter on the score that the wife has voluntarily left the matrimonial house and petition under - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28006 CRL.P No. 5540 of 2026 Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., is not entitled to any amount of maintenance. 4. A perusal at the orders of both the Courts which have concurrently held that the husband is obliged to pay the maintenance to wife and daughter ₹4,000/- per month each. I do not find any warrant to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the concerned Courts allowing the claim of the respondents, by rendering cogent reasons. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal petition stands dismissed. I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23