- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33433 WP No. 1365 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1365 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. DEESHMA G. D/O. MR. GOPALAKRISNAN K AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO. 47, NANDHANAM PUTTARAJU LAYOUT, KALKERE VILLAGE BANNERUGHATTA ROAD. BENGALURU - 560 083. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RASHMI GEORGE, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. VISHEN VINAYA KUMAR S/O VINAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT. NO.1086, APPUS DEN BEHIND RAILWAY LINE ASHOK THEATER, BROTHER'S COLONY CHIKKABANASWARA, BENGALURU - 560 090 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ S. SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU IN THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.3 IN CRL. A. VIDE Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33433 WP No. 1365 of 2026 NO.107/2025 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A AT PAGE NO.26-27 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.107/2025 AS THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AS THE SAID ORDER IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND RESULTS IN A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question an order of the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.107/2025, which turns down application in IA.No.1, which sought certain relief of granting of payment of interim maintenance to the petitioner’s wife. Heard Smt. Rashmi George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Basavaraj S. Sappannavar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The elaborate facts need not be narrated in the case at hand, except the commencement of the narration with the order passed by the concerned Court. The petitioner’s wife institutes proceedings under the Provisions of Domestic Violence Act before the concerned Court. The concerned Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33433 WP No. 1365 of 2026 passes an order of grant of maintenance of Rs.25,000/-. The order reads as follows: ORDER Interim application filed by the petitioner is hereby partly allowed. The respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the petitioner towards interim maintenance of petitioner from the date of this petition. Upon the respondent's appearance, the Court may modify this order considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents are directed not to defame the petitioner by any means or cause any verbal abuse or violence and disturb the peaceful residence of petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on main petition and notice to the respondent No.1 on the interim maintenance." The trial Court had reserved liberty on appearance of the respondent that he may seek modification of the order considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The respondent/husband does not avail of that liberty, but chooses to file an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court is said to have granted an ex-parte interim order of stay of the order of maintenance and before the appeal, the petitioner/wife files application seeking interim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33433 WP No. 1365 of 2026 maintenance that is turned down on the ground that it is not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing to the petitioner would submit that unless the husband had exercised the liberty granted by the Court of filing an application seeking modification, he could not have bypassed the said liberty and challenged the same before the Appellate Court. 6. The said submission is noted only to be rejected. If the liberty is reserved by the Court to file an application seeking vacation of the interim order, that would not close the doors of the Appellate Court to challenge the same. Therefore, there is no warrant of interference on the said submission. Insofar as the application filed before the concerned Court seeking interim maintenance or the appropriate orders to be passed, the concerned Court has erred in rejecting those applications on the score that it is not maintainable. If the appeal has been held to be maintainable at the petition filed by the husband concerning a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- and stayed it also, the application was undoubtedly entertainable for appropriate orders to be passed. The Appellate Court is well - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33433 WP No. 1365 of 2026 within its power to pass necessary orders in the facts and circumstances obtaining in a given case before it. Therefore, the concerned Court's orders, which rejects the applications filed by the petitioner's wife before it stands quashed. 7. The applications shall now be answered in accordance with law by the Appellate Court. Since it is arising out of an interim order of maintenance granted by the trial Court, the Appellate Court shall now decide the issue itself within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18