- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100224 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BASAPPA KAREPPA CHANDARGI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUGALIHAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PARAWWA W/O BASAPPA CHANDARGI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: VITTHAL BASAPPA TORGAL R/O: MUGALIHAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2017 PASSED BY IN CRL. REV. PETITION NO. 275 OF 2015 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.20 12:33:28 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA 1. Heard Sri.Vithal S. Teli, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and Sri.Prashant Mathapati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 2. The present revision petition is filed by the husband under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.) with the following prayer: “Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set-aside the Judgment dated 05.08.2017 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.275 of 2015 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 The respondent is the wife of the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage. It is alleged that during the subsistence of the marriage, the petitioner is said to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 have contracted a second marriage and the matrimonial relationship became strained. 3.2 On account of the strained relationship, the respondent-wife was deserted by the petitioner. She filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. The said petition came to be dismissed after contest. 4. Thereafter, the respondent filed a belated revision petition along with an application seeking condonation of a delay of 911 days in Criminal Revision Petition No.275 of 2015. 5. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court allowed the application and condoned the delay of 911 days. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein filed Criminal Petition No.100201 of 2017. 7. This Court, by a separate order dated 09.02.2026, dismissed the Criminal Petition No.100201/2017. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to urge the grounds relating to condonation of delay of 911 days in the present revision petition. 8. There was no order of stay granted in the said case. Consequently, the revision petition proceeded on merits and by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 the impugned order, the Revisional Court allowed the revision petition and granted maintenance to the respondent in a sum of ₹2,000/- per month. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition on following grounds:  The judgment under challenge is illegal and contrary to facts and circumstance of the case.  The Judgment of the Learned Sessions Judge is considering without one side evidence on the material the record and totally contrary material evidence.  The Judgment of the Learned Sessions Judge is preserves, illegal, biased and contrary to well established principles of law.  The Judgment of the Learned Sessions Judge erred contrary material in passing such baseless, documents and judgment in such bad and culprit manner and which is totally contrary to law.  The Judgment of the Learned Sessions Judge is contrary well established principles of law.  The Learned Judge erred in not taking into consideration the respondent after 1 ½ returned to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 her parental home and gave birth to boy child and baby died soon, thereafter the respondent did not turn up to her matrimonial home to discharge her marriage obligations.  The Sessions Court committed serious error in law as well as facts that the Cr No 291/2010 [CC No 143/2011] is registered as against the adultery i.e. Govindappa Balappa Gani for offence under Section 497 and 506 IPC and police have filed charge sheet and the respondent herself has produced the entire order of CC No 143/2011 for offences under Section 497 and 506 IPC.  The Trail Court committed error in not considering the medical evidence produced by the petitioner and petitioner has examined independent witnesses prove that the respondent is leading adulterous life.  The petitioner submits that he has produced the Ex R3 and R4 scanning report dated 27/04/2010 clearly discloses that the respondent was pregnant and age of fectus was 13 weeks 1 day.  The learned Sessions judge erred considering that the respondent has specifically admitted that she had been delivery and gave birth to child on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 28/10/2009 but the said child died and thereafter respondent did not join the company of the petitioner to lead married life. Hence admitted facts need not be proved as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act.  The learned Sessions judge erred in not considering that the respondent after 28/10/2009 did not join the company of the petitioner but the respondent thereafter i.e. after 28/10/2009 became pregnant. Hence the respondent is leading adulterous life and not entitled maintenance as per sub Section [4] of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.  The learned Sessions judge erred in not considering that the respondent at no point of time has rebutted the evidence produced by the petitioner i.e. Ex R 3 and R4.  The learned Sessions judge committed error in much discussion about irrelevant facts and circumstance which were not warranted.  The learned Sessions judge erred in holding that on the basis on Ex R1 to R3 court cannot come to the conclusion that the respondent is lead adulterous life - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 and further erred holding that the DNA test has not been done.  The learned Sessions judge erred in not considering that the judgment in MC No 32/2012 is subject matter before this Hon'ble Court in MFA No 102812/2015  The petitioner submits that the medical evidence produced by the petitioner and petitioner has examined independent witnesses to prove that the respondent is leading adulterous life in MC No 32/2012.  The petitioner submits that the PW 5 and 6 [Radiologist and Gynecologist) in MC No 32/2012, PW5 Radiologist examined the respondent and had issued certified that the respondent was carrying for 13 weeks on 27/04/2010 and PW6 examined the respondent on 06/05/2010 and informed that incomplete abortion and on 08/05/2010 again the respondent came with her husband [petitioner] elders admitted the respondent and on 09/05/2010 done GAD & C in MC No 32/2012. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017  The Learned Sessions Judge committed error in holding that there is no sufficient material to hold that the respondent is leading adulterous life.  The learned Sessions judge erred in considering that the respondent during her cross examination has admitted that the petitioner and his family members at of time have no point harassed, ill-treated.  The petitioner submits that the respondent after delay 911 day filed Criminal Revision Petition 275/2015 before the Sessions Judge and Learned Sessions Judge has condoned the delay and against the condonation of delay petitioner has filed Criminal Petition No.100201/2017 and same is pending for consideration.  The petitioner submits that against the No.32/2012 by Senior Civil dismissal of MC Judge, Saundatti, the petitioner has filed MFA No 102812/2015 consideration. and same is pending for consideration.  The Learned Sessions has Judge failed to consider the admitted facts by the respondent and Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 and without assigning judicious reasons has passed the impugned judgment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 10. Sri.Vithal S. Teli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would contend that material evidence was placed before the trial Magistrate to the effect that, after the alleged desertion, the respondent-wife was having an adulterous life and that her pregnancy was allegedly from a person other than the petitioner was established before the trial Court. Based on the same, dismissed the maintenance petition. Learned counsel further submits that the First Appellate Court did not properly consider the material evidence, wrongly allowed the revision petition and therefore, sought for allowing the present revision petition and upheld the order of dismissal of the maintenance petition passed by trial Magistrate. 11. He would further contend that the First Appellate Court condoned a delay of 911 without assigning the proper reasons. As a result, the revision petition itself was not maintainable, and the impugned order needs to be set aside. 12. He would further contend that the petitioner had filed a divorce petition, which was dismissed on merits. Since, the respondent actively participated in that divorce petition, the condonation of delay based on the respondent’s allegedly false affidavit has caused a grave miscarriage of justice. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 13. Learned counsel Sri.Vithal S. Teli, would further contend that an appeal against the dismissal of the divorce petition has been filed before this Court, which is now pending as MFA No.102812 of 2015. 14. He would also submit that permanent alimony can be claimed and granted in that appeal in accordance with law, and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 15. Per contra, Sri.Prashant Mathapathi, would contend that the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent for adultery, which, on merits, was dismissed and has attained finality, as the petitioner did not appeal against the respondent’s acquittal. Therefore, maintenance cannot be refused on the ground of adultery. 16. He would further contend that the enquiry before the trial Magistrate in the maintenance proceedings was incidental to the case. 17. However, the prosecution that has been launched by the petitioner for the offence of adultery has resulted its logical conclusion after a thorough trial and the respondent having been acquitted, the issue of adultery cannot be pressed - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 into service again by the husband in this revision petition and therefore sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 18. To substantiate the said contention, he placed on record, by way of a memo, the order of the jurisdictional Magistrate acquitting the respondent of the charge of adultery. 19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties. 21. According to the respondent, the petitioner has contracted a second marriage. The matrimonial tie was strained, and therefore, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. The learned trial Magistrate dismissed the petition. Against the same, a belated revision petition was filed before the First Appellate Court. Though the reasons assigned in the affidavit were not entirely satisfactory, the learned Appellate Judge condoned the considerable delay. Thereafter, the matter became the subject of challenge before this Court in Criminal Petition No.100201 of 2017. The said petition was dismissed in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 view of the disposal of the main matter, which is the subject of the present revision. 23. The fact remains that, simultaneously, the petitioner filed a complaint alleging adultery before the jurisdictional police, which was also tried in C.C.No.143 of 2011. 24. The said criminal case reached its logical conclusion by judgment dated 27.08.2019, wherein the respondent was acquitted of the charge of adultery. Therefore, the reason on which the learned trial Magistrate refused the order of maintenance has now lost its significance. 25. Pertinently, the present petitioner, who was the complainant in the said criminal case, did not choose to file any appeal, nor did the State prefer any appeal. 26. In other words, after a full-fledged trial, when the charge of adultery was not proved and the petitioner was also examined as a witness, the judgment attained finality. Consequently, the ground to avoid the maintenance claim filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been completely lost in toto and therefore, the order of the revisional Court is to be upheld. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 27. Further, since the divorce petition filed by the husband has been dismissed and is now the subject matter of a Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court in MFA No.102812 of 2015, if the petitioner succeeds in that appeal, while awarding the permanent alimony, the amount of interim maintenance that was already granted to the respondent will be definitely taken note of and a suitable order would be passed. 28. Reserving such liberty for the petitioner, the present revision petition needs to be dismissed on merits. 29. Having said so, on the question of delay Sri.Vithal S. Teli, would contend that proper reasons were not assigned while seeking the condonation of the huge delay of 911 days by the respondent-wife, inasmuch as she actively participated in the divorce petition filed by the husband. 30. No doubt, the said contention has sufficient force. However, the adjudication of a maintenance petition is directed towards meeting the social justice and should be construed liberally. 31. Strict rules of evidence are not permissible and on technical grounds, an order of maintenance cannot be rejected. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1898 CRL.RP No. 100224 of 2017 32. Therefore, even though proper reasons were not assigned and delay was condoned by the learned Judge in the Revisional Court, having regard to the fact that there is an allegation of second marriage contracted by the petitioner, there was hardly any scope for reunion between the parties, especially when the husband had leveled such a charge. 33. Moreover, the husband charged the wife with adultery, which ultimately ended in her acquittal. 34. Taking note of these aspects cumulatively, this Court does not find any good grounds to allow the revision petition. 35. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The Revision Petition stands dismissed. (ii) The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be withdrawn by the wife upon due identification. In view of the disposal of the petition, the pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 112