- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29009 CRL.RP No. 1149 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. E SANDYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI. G. NIRANJAN BABU, R/AT NO.165, 4TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, SRINIVASANAGAR, B.S.K. 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. G. NIRANJAN BABU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O SRI. G. MANOHAR NAIDU, R/O NO.4-7-A, VANKAMITTA, SADAKUPPAM POST, BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT - 517 129, ANDHRA PRADESH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.05.2025 PASSED IN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29009 CRL.RP No. 1149 of 2025 CRL.A.NO.598/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-53) AT BANGALORE, AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.74/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-V; AT BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER SEC.23(2) OF PWDV ACT, 2005 IN CRL.MISC.74/2022. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. 2. Heard Sri. Manjunatha H.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Rajagopala Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. This revision petition is filed against the dismissal of application IA No.2 filed under Section 23(2) of DV Act, wherein claim was prayed for interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the son. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.598/2024 and the Appellate Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29009 CRL.RP No. 1149 of 2025 also dismissed the same, coming to the conclusion that petitioner is having sufficient income to maintain her son. But there are no prima facie material available on record to show that the income she earned is not sufficient to maintain her son. Learned Magistrate has properly appreciated the facts of the case and the Trial Court has properly rejected the application filed by the appellant and confirmed the same. By challenging both the orders, the present revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that there is a clear admission that respondent claimed that he was paying an amount of Rs.7,500/- earlier and inspite of the said admission, both Courts have committed an error. The counsel also would submit that it is not in dispute that son is along with the revision petitioner and she is providing education to the son, who is aged about 9 years. The counsel also would submit that the educational expenses amount to more than a lakh per year and those documents are placed before the Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29009 CRL.RP No. 1149 of 2025 5. The counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is having sufficient income and also having a own house, as well as property in her name and the same is observed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court and it does not require any interference. 6. In reply to this argument, counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the house belongs to the parents and the same is not belongs to the petitioner. Learned counsel also would submit that the respondent gifted the property with an object to defeat the claim of the petitioner herein on 05.11.2021. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, this is only an interim maintenance application and while considering the interim maintenance application, the Court has to take note of pleadings of the parties. When there is a clear admission on the part of the respondent also that he was paying an amount Rs.7,500/-, i.e., in the year 2020. But this petition was filed in the year 2022 and the same was rejected and the rejection order was also questioned before the Appellate Court and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29009 CRL.RP No. 1149 of 2025 Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that petitioner has not substantiated that she is not having any sufficient material and the said observation made by the Appellate Court is erroneous and ought not to have made such observation. The Court ought to have taken note of the fact that they are having a son and also he is aged about 9 years and providing education to the son and it is the bound and duty of both father and mother to give education to the child. When such being the case, it is appropriate to direct respondent to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month having taken note of cost of living, as well as cost of education of son. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that this Court has to make it as Rs.7,500/- and this submission cannot be accepted. According to him, he was paying the amount of Rs.7,500/- during the year 2020 and now we are in 2026. The said submission cannot be accepted and the Trial Court has to decide on merits regarding capacity to provide an education and the same cannot be decided while considering the interim application. Having taken note of petition was filed in the year 2022 i.e., maintenance petition as well as counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29009 CRL.RP No. 1149 of 2025 MC.No.7083/2022 is filed by husband and the same is not in progress and this petitioner is not assisting and hence, the respective Courts are directed to consider those petition as soon as possible, not more than a year from today. 9. The respective counsels are directed to place on record the order passed by this Court to the respective Court to dispose of the same within a time bound stipulation mentioned above. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of. The respondent is directed to pay arrears of the monthly maintenance from the date of petition within six weeks from today. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25