- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010129232026 NC: 2026:KHC:40425 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 310 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI H RAMESH S/O T. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.33, 13TH CROSS, 1ST B MAIN, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT POST, BENGALURU-560086. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. THANYA A P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS ANITHA LAKSHMI V N W/O H. RAMESH, D/O NANJAIAH (POST MAN), AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALAGEREPURA VILLAGE AND POST, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572111. 2. MR. SHARATH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS OLD, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, MRS. ANITHA LAKSHMI V.N, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010129232026 NC: 2026:KHC:40425 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2026 RESIDING AT VALAGEREPURA VILLAGE AND POST, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHARATH S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 IS MINOR REP BY R1) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 06.02.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A NO.82/2025 BY III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.239/2023 BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL AND DISMISS THE SAID PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. This matter is listed for settlement and no settlement arrived at between the parties before the Court. 2. This petition was filed claiming maintenance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DV Act') for an amount of Rs.12,000/- each per month for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (wife and minor child) and the trial Court considering the material available on record, passed an order directing the respondent No.1 (husband) to - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010129232026 NC: 2026:KHC:40425 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2026 pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- each and the same is confirmed in the appeal. 3. The only contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - husband is that he is working as a delivery agent and his income is only Rs.10,000/- per month and unable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- each and hence, praying before this Court to modify the judgment of trial Court and also the appellate Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the petition was filed long back and the same was re-numbered in the year 2023 and Rs.10,00,000/- of arrears of maintenance is due in view of the order passed by this Court, Rs.4,000/- each as interim measure, making the payment of Rs.4,000/- each and not even paid the arrears of maintenance Rs.4,000/- each also. 5. Having taken note of the case of the revision petitioner and also the case of the respondents and the petition was filed under Section 12 of DV Act, wherein it is categorically stated before the trial Court that petitioner No.1 is the mother of - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010129232026 NC: 2026:KHC:40425 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2026 petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.1 and the marriage of respondent No.1 and petitioner No.1 was took place in the year 2017 at Sri.Siddhalingeshwara Swamy Samudaya Bhavana, Yedayuru as per their rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner No.1 were given 70 grams of gold and also spent Rs.5,00,000/- for the marriage expenses. It is specifically contented that the revision petitioner is not taking care of the wife and child and even several panchayaths, no fruitful arrangement was made. Hence, the petitioners filed the petition. Respondent No.1 also admitted the marriage with the petitioner No.1 and also admitted in the said wedlock, the second petitioner was born. 6. Considering the cost of living and also the second petitioner is aged about 7 years as on the date of filing of the petition, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that Rs.6,000/- will be just and reasonable maintenance and the appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the trial Court had not committed - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010129232026 NC: 2026:KHC:40425 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2026 any error in fixing the maintenance of Rs.6,000/- each to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the same is reasonable. 7. 7. Having considered the reasoning given by the trial Court and the appellate Court and also the very ground that petitioner is earning only Rs.10,000/- and the same cannot be a ground and the Court has to take note of the cost of living and also the expenditure and also the second petitioner is aged about 7 years as on the date of filing of the petition and the mother has to bear the educational expenses of the child also and having taken note of the material on record, it is not a case for interfere with the findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court and the maintenance awarded is also not exorbitant and the same is just and reasonable and hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition and hence the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44