- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16053 OF 2025 BETWEEN: B.S.HARISH, S/O SHIVANNA C., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BHUVANAGIRI VILLAGE, KUSHALNAGAR, PIN - 571 234. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHILPA B. S., W/O HARISHA B. S., AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT BHUVANAGIRI VILLAGE, KUSHALNAGAR, PIN - 571 234. 2. JAYAMMA, W/O SHIVANNA C., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BHUVANAGIRI VILLAGE, KUSHALNAGAR, PIN - 571 234. 3. SHOBHA, W/O SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BHUVANAGIRI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 KUSHALNAGAR, PIN - 571 234. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.21/2023 DATED 13.6.2024 BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUSHALNAGAR VIDE ANNEXURE – A; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.REV. PETITION NO.115/2024 DATED 8-4-2025 BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODUGU AT MADIKERI VIDE ANNEXURE B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner-husband is before the Court calling in question the orders of the Courts dated 13.06.2024 and 20.11.2025 by which the maintenance to the wife is granted at Rs.5,000/- per month and the same is affirmed by the Court of Session. 2. Heard Sandesh Kumar M, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 3.1. The petitioner is the husband, the respondent-the wife. The two get married on 22.04.2022. The relationship between the two appears to have floundered and it is the case of the petitioner that the wife leaves the matrimonial house 15 days after marriage and never returned back, but files a petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). 3.2. The concerned Court answering the application so filed seeking maintenance, grants maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month notwithstanding the claim being for Rs.20,000/-. This is challenged by the husband before the Court of Session in Criminal Revision Petition No.115/2024 which comes to be dismissed by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the wife has stayed only for 15 days with the husband and therefore, the claim for maintenance should not be granted. The wife is well off and is able to take care of herself and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 petitioner has other responsibilities of the ailing parents to be taken care of and not the wife who has left the matrimonial house on her own volition. He would seek the orders be set- aside. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. 7. The marriage between the two is a matter of fact. The wife after moving out of the matrimonial house, registers a claim before the concerned Court under the provisions of the Act, in which an application is preferred seeking maintenance at Rs.20,000/- per month. The concerned Court by the following impugned order, grants Rs.5,000/- per month: “Monetary Relief u/s 20 of the Act: 15. The applicant has affirmed that 1st respondent is having own car and Auto and the same is let out for rent and he is doing business from which he is earning nearly 50,000/- per month approximately. Any proof thereof has not been filed on record. Applicant does not have any independent source of income. It admittedly the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 respondent is studied upto 7th standard. There is no documents filed by the petitioner to show that he is having agricultural lands or vehicles or to show that he is doing business. Considering the attitude of the 1st respondent and the nature of the profession, his income conservatively assessed to be Rs.15,000/ per month. He is accordingly, directed to give an amount of Rs.5,000/ per month for the maintenance of the applicant since the date of filing of the petition. The payment of above amount shall be made by the respondent by the 10th of every month to be deposited in the bank account of Applicant. 16. Further there is no documents or evidence to show that the other respondents had given domestic violence to the petitioner. Hence, case against respondent NO.2 and 3 is deserves to be dismissed. 17. In light of the above findings, I answer this point No.1 and 2 are partly in the affirmative. Point No.3 :- 18. For the above discussion on Points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following O R D E R : The petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is hereby partly allowed. The 1st respondent is hereby directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the petitioner. The petition against respondent No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed. By considering the relationship of the parties no order as to costs. Supply free copy of this order to the petitioner.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 This is challenged before the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.115/2024, which comes to be dismissed by the following order: “-: R E A S O N S :- 9. POINT No.1 :- Upon perusal of the petition filed by the Petitioner before the trial court, the affidavit submitted to that effect as per the mandatory provisions of Rajaneesh Vs. Neha's case, the documents placed by the Petitioner, the affidavit which shows the assets, income and expenditures of both the parties, it is very clear that this Petitioner is aged only 21 years and filed this petition in the month of March 2023. Further, there is not dispute with regard to the date of marriage and date of separation. The documents shows that, the educational qualification of Petitioner is PUC. It is also clear that she has no independent income of her own. At the time of obtaining the Report from the Protection Officer it was revealed that there is a clear case of domestic violence towards the Petitioner. 10. In support of the affidavit filed by Petitioner Shilpa she has produced the Marriage Invitation Card, the photographs of the marriage in support of the case. Ofcourse there is no dispute with regard to the marriage and later on, when the case was posted for cross examination the trial court rightly observed that since the Respondents have not filed objections, the cross of PW-1 is taken as Nil. Later on, the case was posted for arguments. Even then the Respondents have not come before the court in order to submit the written objections and to contest the version of PW-1. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the revision Petitioners vehemently contended that, the orders passed by the trial court dated 13.06.2024 is exparte and therefore, an opportunity is to be given to the revision petitioners in order to contest the case. It was also contended that, whatever the orders passed by the trial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 court is one sided and no opportunity was given to the Respondents (the petitioners herein) in order to file the statement of objections. 12. On perusal of the entire order sheet, it is clear that the petition was filed on 18.03.2023. Later on, notice was issued to the Respondents on 20.05.2023 and on 15.07.2023 the Respondent No.1 to 3 have appeared before the trial court through their Advocate. However, even after giving sufficient opportunity, they have not filed any objections and therefore, the case was posted for evidence of Petitioner. Even the court has given sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to lead the evidence and at last the evidence of Petitioner before the trial court was recorded on 11.12.2023. Even after that the Respondents have not come before the trial court in order to file the statement of objections. No doubt, when a case has been filed for maintenance, the court has to adopt the summary procedures in order to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. However, in this case even after the lapse of nearly 1 year the Respondents have not made up their mind in order to file statement of objections to the petition filed by the Petitioner before the trial court. So rightly, the trial court observed that since they have filed any objections, the cross examination of PW-1 is taken as Nil. So, as contended by the counsel for the Petitioner the orders passed by the trial court is not exparte, rather than since Respondents have sleep over their right in order to file the statement of objections, the trial court correctly rejected their contention and taken the cross examination of PW-1 as Nil. 13. Nowhere in the grounds of the revision petition it was contended that these revision Petitioners are not related to Respondent. In other words, the marital relationship in between Respondent with the revision Petitioner No.1 is not disputed. The Wedding Invitation Card and photographs of the marriage clearly reveals this aspect. Further, in the affidavit of PW-1 she has specifically contended that the Respondents are treating her with cruelty after consuming liquor and inspite of repeated attempts to settle the matter, the mindset of the Respondents are not changed and for that reason she deserted the house of her in-laws. No doubt, when the notice was sufficiently served to the Respondents and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 when they have appeared before the court through the Advocate, it is their duty to file statement of objections and contest the case. However, even after lapse of 1 year the Respondents have not appeared before the court and made up their mind to file statement of objections and evidence adduced by PW-1 is not contradicted. 14. Law says it is the duty of the husband to look after his wife who is unable to maintain herself. The Respondent No.1 is having Car and Auto and earning Rs.50,000/- every month by renting out the said vehicles and also having sufficient income in order to maintain his wife. However, all these revision Petitioners joined together in order to harass the Respondent of this petition even though they were residing under the common roof. On the one side, the trial court rightly found that the domestic relationship is established by the Petitioner and further the Respondents have failed to maintain the Petitioner correctly and since even after having sufficient income the Respondents have failed to look after the Petitioner, the trial court rightly passed the impugned order. There is nothing to interfere in the Orders passed by the trial court awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Petitioner that is the respondent herein by the revision petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.” The orders so challenged are after rendering cogent reasons, which would not call for any interference, more so, in the light of the fact of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER V. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG1, wherein the Apex Court has 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 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 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. 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. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5738 CRL.P No. 16053 of 2025 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." 8. In the light of the facts narrated hereinabove and the judgment of the Apex Court, the petition does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. The petition lacking in merits, stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK/CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT:SS