- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31324 CRL.RP No. 562 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.562 OF 2024 BETWEEN: CHANNABASAVAIAH S/O T.G. BASAVARAJU AGED 64 YEARS R/O BHAGAVATHIKERE MAIDOLALU POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577661 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B N SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED 48 YEARS C/O PREMAMMA W/O PARASAPPA HALEBARANDURU VILLAGE BAHDRAVATHI TALUK-577661 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V S VENKATESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRL.A.NO.152/2015 DATED 15.09.2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31324 CRL.RP No. 562 of 2024 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 revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 15.09.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.152/2015 and also against the interim order passed in Crl.Mis.No.1/2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026 for vacating stay order granted by this Court. 4. Having considered the order sheet, it discloses that though the revision petition is filed in 2023, the same was numbered in 2024 after the compliance and there was no interim order of stay before the Courts below but only this Court vide order dated 19.12.2025, considering I.A.No.1/2025 granted stay since the matter requires consideration with liberty to the respondent to seek for vacation of stay by filing an appropriate application. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31324 CRL.RP No. 562 of 2024 5. Having considered the material on record, it discloses that this revision petition is filed against the order of granting of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. At the time of granting interim maintenance, the Trial Court taken note that in the affidavit, the claimant states that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and she is unable to maintain herself. It is also stated that respondent is an agriculturalist and also he has got sufficient income. Taking note of the same, the Trial Court granted the interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- p.m. opining that if proper maintenance is not ordered, the petitioner will be suffer irreparably. 6. Immediately, the respondent filed an application before the Trial Court seeking to alter the order of interim maintenance and to set aside the same. The trial Court having considered the said application also comes to the conclusion that the respondent has come up with this application to modify the interim order. In the interim application, the respondent has categorically denied the relationship with the petitioner. It is contented that respondent has no sort of nexus with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31324 CRL.RP No. 562 of 2024 petitioner. The trial Court while rejecting the application taken note of the documents produced by the petitioner and on perusal of the photographs, held that it prima facie appears that the respondent has married the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the contention raised by the respondent in the application at this stage cannot be considered and rejected the application. 7. The said order was challenged before the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.152/2015. The appellate court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal held that when the defence was taken that she is not the wife, the trial Court ignored the said fact and believed the photographs produced by the petitioner and passed an interim order. The trial court ought to have modified the order. Considering these grounds, the appellate court taken note that the relationship is disputed and whether the appellant and respondent are husband and wife or not or they lived as husband and wife or they maintained living in relationship, everything should be ascertained only at the time of trial. The trial Court passed an order of interim maintenance. Passing any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31324 CRL.RP No. 562 of 2024 interim order is discretion of the trial Court. The appellate court has got limited power to interfere. In a ruling reported in SHALU OJHA vs PRASHANT OJHA reported in 2014 SAR SC, wherein it is observed that no express grant of power conferred on the sessions court while such power is expressly conferred on the magistrate under Section 23. If any modification is expected by the respondent/appellant, he has to approach the same court. In this case, appellant approached the learned magistrate, but the learned magistrate has not convinced to modify the order. Hence, the appellate Court can direct the magistrate to take up the case at the earliest and appellant can approach the magistrate questing the Court to hold the trial as early as possible as he disputed the marriage and also the relationship of any kind with opposite party. 8. The issue with regard to the jurisdiction is concerned, the appellate Court held that respondent herein is resident of Bhadravathi. So the Court at Shivamogga has no jurisdiction to try the matter. This question also has to be considered by the trial Court. With above discussion, dismissed the appeal in coming to the conclusion that trial Court has to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31324 CRL.RP No. 562 of 2024 decide the issue of jurisdiction as well as the issue of relationship between the parties. 9. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in his argument would vehemently contend that there is a dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties in respect of the very marriage and also contend that when the petition was filed, an ex parte interim maintenance was granted and subsequently, an application was also filed and the same is also rejected. The appellate court also committed an error in directing the revision petitioner to urge the grounds which have been urged before the appellate court, before the trial Court. The very approach of the appellate court is also erroneous. There is a dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as well as jurisdiction, when both petitioner and also the respondent are residing at Bhadravathi, instead of approaching the Bhadravathi court, approached the Shivamogga court. The very order sheet and also the cause title is very clear that both of them are residing within the jurisdiction of Bhadravathi. It is brought to notice of this court the cause title of criminal miscellaneous as well as criminal appeal wherein it discloses - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31324 CRL.RP No. 562 of 2024 that both are residents of Bhadravathi. Hence, the court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for granting of maintenance. 10. Per contra, the counsel appearing per the respondent would submit that the interim maintenance granted was ex parte interim maintenance and on appearance of the petitioner, an application was also filed and trial Court taken note of the photograph of the marriage and considered the same and rejected the application. The counsel also would submit that the appellate court also while exercising appellate jurisdiction held that the issue of relationship between the parties has to be decided at trial Court as well as with regard to the jurisdiction. Hence, the question of entertaining this revision petition does not arise. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that both the parties are residents of Bhadravathi as per the cause title of the petition filed by the petitioner as well as the appeal filed by the appellant/revision petitioner. But what made the petitioner in Crl.Mis. to approach - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31324 CRL.RP No. 562 of 2024 the Shivamogga Court is not forth coming. The appellate Court also passed the order holding that trial Court has no jurisdiction and the issue with regard to the relationship as well as jurisdiction are concerned to be decided by the Trial Court. 12. The order impugned before this Court is only challenging the granting of interim maintenance. The issue of relationship between the parties and also the issue of jurisdiction has to be considered by the trial Court, the question of considering the granting of interim maintenance does not arise. However, this Court can direct the trial Court to decide the issue regarding jurisdiction as preliminary issue and decide the same within one month from today since the petition of the year 2015 and directed respective parties and counsel to assit the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within the time stipulated as the matter is of more than a decade old. If Court comes to the conclusion that petition is maintainable, order for interim maintenance and consider the matter on merits thereafter within two months after recoding evidence. If comes to the conclusion that the petition is not maintainable at Shivamogga, send it o the jurisdictional Court fixing the date - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31324 CRL.RP No. 562 of 2024 for appearance before the jurisdictional Court to decide the same within two months from that date. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN