- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22812 CRL.RP No. 314 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 314 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. SUJITH B.S. S/O. LATE B.V. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.73, SUSHANTHA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, JAI BHEEM NAGAR, MADIWALA, B.T.M. 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN K.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARMADA P W/O. SUJITH B.S., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 2. ANSHIKA B.S. D/O.SRI. SUJITH B.S. MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 (NARMADA P.) BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.252, OFF 11, 1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22812 CRL.RP No. 314 of 2026 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.541/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDL.FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU THEREBY PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A NO.2 FILED U/S 125(1)(a)(b) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING FOR THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE AND THEREBY ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Arun K.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shankar H.S., learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the husband who suffered an order of maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.541/2024 and was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance from the date of application till the disposal of the case and also directed to pay 50% of the school fees and educational expenses of a child by name "Anshika B.S.". Hence, the said order is under challenge before this Court. 3. In the first place, against an interim order passed by the Family Court, revision petition itself is not maintainable. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22812 CRL.RP No. 314 of 2026 Accordingly, revision petition needs to be dismissed on that score alone. 4. Even otherwise, since the order is interim in nature, if there is a changed circumstance which would make out a case for the petitioner to seek for modification, he may do so in the pending proceedings. 5. Further, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are that there is no action that is attributable on the part of the petitioner whereby desertion of the wife by the petitioner can be established, and no interim maintenance was payable by the petitioner to the respondent. 6. All these aspects of the matter ought to be considered in the main petition after parties place necessary evidence. Therefore, the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20