- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22311 RP No. 502 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REVIEW PETITION NO. 502 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMED SIDDIQ, S/O LATE K. SUBHAN SAHIB, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A NO.18, S-2, SANNY SIDE APARTMENT, MARIAMMA TEMPLE STREET, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALURU - 560 084. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.K.NARAYANA SWAMY., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. NAMRA, D/O C. ABDUL AZEEM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.998, 14TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, 16TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, HBR LAYOUT, NAGAWARA, BANGALORE - 560 043. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAKASH T., ADVOCATE AND SRI.MAHANTAPPA S., ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND BY REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED 4.09.2025 MADE IN RPFC NO.60/2025 BE FURTHER PLEASED TO HEAR THE PARTIES AND PASS NECESSARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE MENTIONED REVIEW PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22311 RP No. 502 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present review petition is filed seeking review of the order passed in RPFC No.60/2025 dated 04.09.2025. 2. The husband has come before this Court questioning the maintenance of an amount of Rs.15,000/- that is awarded to the wife. It is urged in the RPFC before this Court that the parties are residing separately from 2012 and in the year 2012, the wife had sought for maintenance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by filing Crl.Misc.No.346/2012 and the Family Court had allowed the said miscellaneous on 30.06.2014 by directing the husband to pay an amount Rs.4,000/- per month towards rent and Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband filed Crl.A.No.25112/2014 and the Appellate Court by order dated 06.10.2015 allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.346/2012 and dismissed the said - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22311 RP No. 502 of 2025 Criminal Miscellaneous. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the wife had filed Crl.RP.No.1175/2015 before this Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said revision petition and set aside the order dated 06.10.2025. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier round of litigation, when the wife had already filed an application for maintenance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and is receiving maintenance of an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month, the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Family Court while filing Crl.Misc.No.538/2018 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In view of the orders, husband has to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.9,000/- plus Rs.15,000/- to the wife. It comes to an amount of Rs.24,000/- per month and he is not in a position to pay the said amount. In the order this Court has also recorded the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the wife that right from 2012 till now, the maintenance comes to more than Rs.13 lakhs, out of which only Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid till now. It is further observed that the gross income of the husband is Rs.8,94,252/- and even after considering health condition of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22311 RP No. 502 of 2025 the wife and an order passed by the Court, husband failed to pay the amount which shows the conduct of the husband. Till now, he has paid only meager amount towards maintenance, which clearly shows that the husband has no respect to the orders of the Court and no concern for his wife, who is suffering with health conditions and accordingly, the Court had dismissed the RPFC filed by the husband. 4. Husband has come up with the review petition. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in a Crl.P.No.7413/2019 dated 13.01.2022 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein it is observed that since the issue with regard to payment of maintenance to the respondent is seized before the Court and the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ought not to have awarded interim maintenance to the respondent. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another, the Court is of the view that conflicting orders from overlapping jurisdiction would place the husband into hardship. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are not sustainable in law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22311 RP No. 502 of 2025 5. Relying on said order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order that is passed by this Court is contrary to a view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is further contended that the wife has suppressed the fact that she is receiving maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act and therefore, she is not entitled for any relief from this Court as per the judgment in Rajnesh Vs. Neha referred to supra. 6. First and foremost, the grounds that are raised before this Court are not grounds on which an order can be reviewed. There is no error apparent on the face of the order. Co-ordinate Bench’s order in Crl.P.No.7413/2019 is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha's case, hence, the same is not binding on this Court. Moreover, looking at the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, it is clear that any relief granted to a wife thereunder is in addition to the reliefs available under other enactments. Further, the petitioner, who has failed to pay maintenance to the wife, and has failed to comply with the orders of the Court, has again come before this Court seeking review of the order and submits again that he is ready for a One-Time Settlement - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22311 RP No. 502 of 2025 and seeks adjournment. This kind of successive petitions filed without any basis and on the very same grounds as urged earlier, amount to clear abuse of the process of law. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the wife. ii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13