- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34314 CRL.P No. 6460 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6460 OF 2026 (482 (Cr.PC)/ 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR. AKSHAY N. @ AKSHAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. LINGAPRASAD, R/AT 139. C, SAI SERINITY LAYOUT, GODHAVARI MAIN ROAD, SEEGEHALLI, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 049 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH RAO K., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT BHARATHI V. D/O SRI. P. VENKATARAMANA, W/O SRI. N. AKSHAY @ AKSHAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO. 30, MUNIKEMPANA LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHEWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 024 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE HONBLE JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI) BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.MISC.NO.244/2024 AND BE PLEASED TO PASS AN ORDER, MODIFYING AND REDUCING THE SAID MONTHLY Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34314 CRL.P No. 6460 of 2026 MAINTENANCE AFFORDABLE TO THE PETITIONER/HUSBAND TO RS.2,000/- TO 2,500/- AS THE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE. 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, which rejects the plea of the petitioner in a challenge to the maintenance awarded to the wife at Rs.7,000/-. 2. Heard Sri Rajesh Rao K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner gets married to the respondent on 16.06.2024 and soon thereafter, the relationship between the two flounders. On floundering of the relationship, certain proceedings are instituted by the wife against the husband and the husband against the wife as the case would be. The present proceeding is the one instituted by the wife seeking maintenance at the hands of the husband. The concerned Court grants monthly - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34314 CRL.P No. 6460 of 2026 maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the wife and the petitioner then challenges the same before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.1279/2025, only to be rejected. 4. The petitioner today claims that he is a rapido taxi driver and therefore, does not have the capacity to pay the maintenance at Rs.7,000/- to the wife. 5. The submission is noted only to be rejected. 6. The order of the concerned Court does not proved any illegality for this Court to entertain the petition, wherein the wife is awarded maintenance of Rs.7,000/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG1, wherein it is held as follows: "10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34314 CRL.P No. 6460 of 2026 obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai2, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no. 2- son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34314 CRL.P No. 6460 of 2026 12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order. 13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant- wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son. 14. It is accordingly directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the Family Court. The entire amount of arrears shall be deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within eight weeks from today, after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by him." 7. Therefore, the petition does not deserve any indulgence, and the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE PB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 138