- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 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. 237 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. A.P. SRIDHAR, S/O LATE DR. A. PUTTAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT DHANAVADI CROSS, NAGOLLI GRAMA, ARAKERE POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 245. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: SHUBHA K.S., W/O A.P. SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT 1845/159, "GURUJI NILAYA", 4TH CROSS, VINAYAKA BADAVANE, VIDYANAGARA, DAVANGERE - 577 005. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURALI S., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.12.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANGERE IN CRL.A.NO.122/2024 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025 PAY RS.10,000/- PER MONTH FROM DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL THE DISPOSAL. 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 the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and on the earlier date of hearing, the respondent's counsel was absent and today also he is absent and not pursuing the matter diligently though filed the Vakalath. 3. The factual matrix of the case of revision petitioner is that the respondent herein has filed I.A.No.1/2017 under Section 23(2) read with Section 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which, she had claimed the interim maintenance, wherein it is contended that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and they have a daughter by name - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025 Niriksha A.S. The respondent No.1 i.e., petitioner herein started giving her mental and physical torture and neglected in not providing the maintenance. 4. The respondent/petitioner herein has appeared and filed statement of objections contending that already in Crl.Misc.No.132/2014, the Hon'ble I Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi, has awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioner and her daughter in a proceedings initiated under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court having considered the claim of the respondent and also the objections of the present petitioner in paragraph No.10, comes to the conclusion that already the respondent and her daughter are getting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each and such being the case, they are not entitled for further maintenance. 5. The said order was challenged before the Appellate Court by the respondent herein by fling an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025 appeal and the Appellate Court in detail taking note of the reasoning given by the trial Court in Crl.A.No.122/2024, comes to the conclusion that considering the cost of living and also of the fact that the daughter is under the custody of the respondent and pursuing her education, trial Court has committed an error in coming to such a conclusion and awarded additional amount of Rs.5,000/- each for the petitioner as well as to the daughter. The same is challenged before this Court. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the order passed by the Appellate Court is erroneous and it failed to take note of the amount already awarded, in total, an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the wife as well as the daughter. The learned counsel also contended that Sessions Court has not at all considered that the petitioner is not having sufficient means to earn and his annual income as per the Government Certificate is only Rs.15,000/- and in spite of it, the Appellate Court committed an error in allowing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025 the appeal and granting an additional maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each, apart from the order passed by the trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., proceedings and hence, the impugned order requires interference. 7. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also considering the reasoning assigned by the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court has committed an error in passing a cryptic order in one page, particularly in paragraph No.10, already maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each has been granted to the petitioner and her daughter. When such being the case and considering the circumstances of the case, the trial Court has not even discussed anything about the cost of living and also the educational expenses of the daughter. However, the Appellate Court while considering the appeal in detail, discussed the same and particularly in paragraph No.34, it has noted that the Bhadravathi Court had passed the order in 2021, awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioner and the daughter. The same was not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025 sufficient. Taking note of the fact of cost of living, including educational and medical expenses, the Appellate Court has increased the maintenance amount and hence, in paragraph Nos.35, 36 and 37, keeping in view the order already passed by the trial Court in awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/-, the Appellate Court has granted an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the petitioner and to her daughter, until disposal of the case, and the same would not cause any injustice to the revision petitioner. 8. The Appellate Court while giving additional amount of Rs.5,000/- has taken note of the cost of living, educational expenses and other medical expenses and the same was not taken note of by the trial Court while rejecting the claim made by the respondent. When such a reasoned order has been passed by the Appellate Court by considering the cost of living, as well as educational expenses of the daughter, I do not find any error on the part of the Appellate Court in granting an additional - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025 amount of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondent and her daughter. 9. Hence, in this case, I do not find any grounds to admit this revision petition and order of the trial Court does not suffer from any legality and correctness and the amount is also awarded as interim maintenance and the trial Court can decide the quantum of compensation on merits after recording the evidence with regard to the income of the revision petitioner and the trial Court can even vary or modify the same, subject to the materials placed by the respondent/claimant before the trial Court and also considering the evidence of the present revision petitioner with regard to capacity to make the payment. With the above observation, the revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE PSJ / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25