- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29218 CRL.RP No. 1967 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1967 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. H.R. GOWRAMMA W/O SRI H.M. RUDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.5, KALLESHWARA KRUPA, 12TH CROSS, NEAR NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, SHIVAPURA, NELAGADARANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 073. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. B.R. HARINI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. H.M. RUDRAKUMAR S/O SRI D. MAHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT BANASHANKARI NILAYA, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AJITH A. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.11.2025 PASSED BY THE 61ST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-62), IN CRL.A.NO.936/2023 TO THE EXTENT OF REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AS FAR AS IT RELATES TO Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29218 CRL.RP No. 1967 of 2025 SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. The matter is listed before this Court for admission. 2. This revision is filed praying the Court to modify the order of remand dated 10.11.2025 passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.936/2023, by 61st Additional City Civil and Sessions Jude, Bengaluru (CCH-62) to the extent of remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration and to set aside the order insofar as it relates to setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court, consequently confirming the order of the trial Court and grant such other order or direction. 3. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner brought to the notice of this Court to the conclusion arrived by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29218 CRL.RP No. 1967 of 2025 appellate Court in paragraph 19 that in the instant case, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the respondent/petitioner is entitled for maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month. But whether the appellant/respondent No.1 has proved the capacity to pay the same and despite the same is not paying maintenance to the respondent/petitioner is not discussed in the impugned judgment. Hence, the impugned judgment under appeal needs to be set aside and remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the appellant/respondent and the respondent/petitioner with regard to their income after leading any evidence in this regard, if they chose to do so and also direct to consider the oral and documentary evidence on record while passing the judgment in the case. 4. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also brought to notice of this Court to the order passed by the trial Court, particularly the discussion made in paragraph 35 that after considering the evidence of PW.1 and also the documentary evidence and so also the evidence of respondent herein examining the witnesses No.2 to 6 along with him, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29218 CRL.RP No. 1967 of 2025 confronted 65 documents as per Exhibits R1 to R65, during the examination-in-chief, totaling 67 documents. The trial Court having considered the material and record, while considering the point for consideration, particularly in paragraph 35, taken note of the capacity of the respondent that Exhibit P7 discloses that owner of the property is one Rudrakumar, who is none other than respondent No.1. He purchased the property bearing No.4, Kata No.127, Assessment No.27 measuring east-west 18 feet, north-south 35 feet situated at Nelgadaranahalli, Yashwantupura Hobli, Bangalore North under registered sale deed dated 29.11.2000 from one P.N.Lakshminarayanappa. 5. On perusal of Exhibit P8, it discloses that one D. M. Latha had executed a gift deed dated 12.10.2012 in the name of H.M.Rudrakumar, who is respondent No.1 in respect of the very same property, portion of the property, measuring East to west 17 feet, North to South 35 feet. During the course of cross examination of RW.1, the counsel for the petitioner had confronted the document i.e. certified copy of the gift deed dated 19.07.2013 as per Exhibit P.27 executed by H.M. Rudrakumar - respondent No. 1 in favour of H.M. Latha in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29218 CRL.RP No. 1967 of 2025 respect of the very same property which was purchased under Exhibit P7. The trial Court also taken note of Ex.P.27 and observes that the property which was purchased by respondent No.1 under registered Sale Deed dated 29.11.2000 Exhibit P7 from one Lakshminarayanappa and the said property had been executed gift deed in favour of his sister H.M.Latha. It seems that respondent No.1 had already gifted the said property to H.M.Latha as per Exhibit P27. The intention of respondent No.1 has to be considered at this juncture. It seems from the records that respondent No.1 even though having wife and female children, he intentionally executed the gift deed in favour of H.M.Latha, who is none other than the sister of respondent No.1. 6. The trial Court has considered all these materials in detail and discussed in paragraphs 39, 40, 41 and also taken note of the intention of the respondent-husband in paragraph No.42. On perusal of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, it clearly discloses that petitioner and her female children were residing in the portion of property i.e., the very same property and hence, taking into note of the conduct, the trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29218 CRL.RP No. 1967 of 2025 disposed of the matter and when such reasoning is given by the trial Court, the counsel would contend that the same has not been discussed. 7. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the appellate Court has not committed any error and as no proper opportunity was given and also the source to pay the amount of compensation as ordered in the petition was not discussed, has rightly remanded the same. 8. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the respondent and also the material available on record, it is clear that the trial Court has taken about 7 years to dispose of Crl.Misc.No.23/2016 and the petitioner examined one witness as PW1 and got marked documents Exhibits P1 to P29. On the other hand, the respondent being an advocate who has examined himself as RW1 and also examined RWs 2 to 6 on his behalf including his sister who has gifted the property in his favour earlier and also the very gift deed executed by him in favour of his sister i.e. RW 3 and got marked the documents Exhibits R1 to R132. When such opportunity is given to examine RWs 1 to 6 and given an opportunity to mark the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29218 CRL.RP No. 1967 of 2025 documents Exhibits R1 to R132 and so also when the trial Court has taken note of Exhibit P7 and Exhibit P8 and also the gift deed executed by the husband who is the respondent herein in favour of his sister and also the intention and conduct of the respondent/husband was taken note of and detailed order has been passed and discussions were made from page number 1 to 46. The appellate Court did not apply its judicious mind while disposing of the appeal and comes to the conclusion that whether he has having capacity to pay the interim maintenance of ₹20,000/-, whether it is paid or not and the said reasoning given in paragraph 39 is against the material available on record and fails to take note of the discussion made by the trial Court while disposing of the matter on merits and the very remand order itself is very cryptic and not discussed on the merits of the case referring to documents at Exhibits P1 to 29 and also Exhibits R1 to 132 produced by the respondent and a detailed order was passed. There is no any discussion and instead of considering the same on merits while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate Court committed an error in remanding the same and it is nothing but an escapism in considering both oral and documentary evidence already on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29218 CRL.RP No. 1967 of 2025 record and erroneously comes to the conclusion that an opportunity has to be given and this reasoning suffers from non application of judicious mind and hence, revision petition requires to be allowed and consequently, the order passed by the First Appellate Court requires to be modified to the extent of remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration and setting aside the order impugned passed by the trial Court and directing the appellate Court to exercise the appellate jurisdiction considering the material available on record, question of giving one more opportunity as coming to the conclusion by the appellate Court is an order of infirmity and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. The same suffers from its legality and correctness. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Revision petition is allowed. ii) Impugned order passed by the appellate Court in remanding the matter is set aside and so also setting aside the order of the trial Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29218 CRL.RP No. 1967 of 2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.23/2026 and directed to dispose of the appeal on merits in view of the observations made by this Court considering the evidence of PW1 as well as Exhibits P1 to P29 and so also the evidence of RW1 to RW6 and documents of Exhibit R1 to R132. iii) Both parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court On 06.07.2026, without expecting any notice. iv) The appellate Court is directed to consider the appeal within two months from that date and no further time will be extended. v) The respective counsels are also directed to assist the appellate Court in disposal of the same since the petition was filed in the year 2016 almost a decade has elapsed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29218 CRL.RP No. 1967 of 2025 vi) The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also filed a memo of calculation and according to the memo of calculation the due amount is ₹6,40,000/-. The respondent is directed to pay the same and if any payment is made, place the material before the appellate Court and difference amount is payable within one week from today. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31