- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35883 CRL.RP No. 480 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 480 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE KADIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT GUNAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE PATHAPALYA HOBLI, NAREMADDEPALLI POST BAGEPALLI TALUK CHICKKABALLAPUR-562 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVASA RAO S.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA @ NAGARATHNA D/O JAYARAMMAPPA W/O K. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. SHRUTHI D/O K. VENKATARAMANAPA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT YARRAMARENAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35883 CRL.RP No. 480 of 2018 SADALI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT SIDLAGATTA-562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.B. CHANDRASHEKAR SWAMY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGATTA ON THE FILE OF C.M.C NO.246/2013 AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPR (SITTING AT CHINTHAMANI) ON THE FILE OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10/2017. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The parties are referred to in the original ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. This revision petition is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court in respect of the petition filed under Section 12 read with Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35883 CRL.RP No. 480 of 2018 maintenance of Rs.8,000/- for both the petitioners and also Rs.5,000/- for the educational expenses of second petitioner. 4. The Trial Court taking note of defence that there was no marriage and considering the admission on the part of the respondent and also considering the material on record Ex.P1-marriage invitation card comes to the conclusion that first petitioner is the wife and second petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. Hence, ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the first petitioner, Rs.2,000/- to the second petitioner and an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the second petitioner towards educational expenses and in all ordered to pay Rs.7,000/- and also Rs.500/- towards application expense. 5. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the same taking note of cost of living and also educational expenses and the second petitioner was also aged about 13 years as on the date of filing of the petition, confirmed the order of maintenance. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35883 CRL.RP No. 480 of 2018 6. The present revision petition is filed before this Court mainly contending that Trial Court committed an error in not considering the fact that husband is a Coolie and maintenance awarded is exorbitant. It is contended that the wife, according to her case, has invoked the jurisdiction of the Trial Court more than nine years after her separation from the husband. The claim is dubious and without any legitimacy and marriage is also disputed and he is not having any source of income other than working as Coolie and when his income is only Rs.3,000/-, question of paying the amount of Rs.7,000/- does not arise. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the wife and daughter would submit that the Trial Court has taken note of admission on the part of wife, wherein suggestion was made to P.W.1 by the respondent that she had lodged the complaint, since he married a woman Aruna and also material discloses that Exs.P8 and P9 are admitted that the same belongs to him and the same stands in his name. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35883 CRL.RP No. 480 of 2018 8. Having taken note of the submission of the respective counsel and also the respondent is already married and suggestion was made to the P.W.1 that the petitioner has given complaint against him, since he married one Aruna. But, though denied the very suggestion made, but P.W.1 in the cross-examination admits that a complaint was lodged by the petitioner that he married one Aruna and no such further suggestion was made that he did not marry any such lady Aruna in the cross-examination of P.W.1. When such material is available before the Court and when the maintenance awarded is only Rs.3,000/- to the first petitioner, Rs.2,000/- to the second petitioner and Rs.2,000/- towards educational expenses of the second petitioner, who is also aged about 13 years. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition and the order not suffers from its illegality and correctness. The case was filed in the year 2013 and the same was disposed of in 2017 and taking note of cost of living in the year 2017, that too only Rs.3,000/- to the first petitioner, Rs.2,000/- to the second petitioner and Rs.2,000/- towards educational expenses is not exorbitant and the very contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35883 CRL.RP No. 480 of 2018 committed an error in awarding maintenance of Rs.7,000/- cannot be accepted and there is no miscarriage of justice and question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52