Dismissed¶117

Sri C Gopalakrishna v. Smt Sowdahamini R M

Karnataka HC25 Feb 2025CRL.P/1103/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 25.02.2025 (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.): S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS petition by husband against D.V. Act interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. (C.Misc.No.56/2020, order dt. 31.03.2021) and confirming revisional order (Crl.R.P.No.123/2024, dt. 23.11.2024) dismissed; later Family Court maintenance order in M.C.No.217/2020 (dt. 23.04.2021) held no ground to interfere with the earlier interim order.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the criminal petition is dismissed and both impugned orders are left undisturbed; the Trial Court is directed to dispose of Crl.Misc.No.56/2020 expeditiously, preferably within six months. ¶117

Sri C Gopalakrishna Vs Smt Sowdahamini R M — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶117

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders — the Trial Court's order dated 31.03.2021 in C.Misc.No.56/2020 granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. under the D.V. Act and the Revisional Court's order dated 23.11.2024 in Crl.R.P.No.123/2024 confirming it — deserve to be set aside/quashed. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, nor are they capricious or perverse warranting interference; the petition has no merit and is dismissed.

¶117

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the Family Court passed a subsequent order of maintenance on 23.04.2021 in M.C.No.217/2020, the same cannot be made the basis to interfere with the earlier order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court under the D.V. Act; the petitioner's contention (advanced in the light of Rajnesh Vs. Neha) cannot be accepted.

¶115

Key takeaways

The Trial Court before whom Crl.Misc.No.56/2020 is pending is directed to dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio¶119

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.) dismissed a criminal petition filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. read with S.528 BNSS by a husband seeking to quash (i) the interim maintenance order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru in C.Misc.No.56/2020 under S.23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, directing payment of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to his wife and child, and (ii) the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.R.P.No.123/2024 confirming the Trial Court order. The Court held that the Family Court's maintenance direction in M.C.No.217/2020 (order dated 23.04.2021, following dismissal of the S.9 Hindu Marriage Act restitution petition) post-dated the interim maintenance order and therefore cannot be made the basis to interfere with it; on re-appreciation, the impugned orders suffer no illegality, infirmity, caprice or perversity. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of Crl.Misc.No.56/2020 preferably within six months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1103 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI C.GOPALAKRISHNA S/O CHANNAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT MIG 1029, 2^ND STAGE, BOGADI NORTH, MYSURU-570 026

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT.SOWDAHAMINI R.M. W/O C.GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT KAMENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAGGERE POST, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 602

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN CRL.R.P.NO.123/2024, DATED:23.11.2024 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU IN C.MISC.NO.56/2020 DATED: 31.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

In this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :-

¶22

"Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays before this hon'ble court be pleased to set aside the order passed by the hon'ble VII Additional District and Sessions Judge in CrI.R.P.No.123/2024 dated 23-11-2024 (ANNEXURE-B) and set aside the order passed by the I Addl Civil Judge & JMFC at Mysuru in C.Mis.No.56/2020 dated 31-03-2021 (Annexure-A) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶24

A perusal of the material on record indicate that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act for short) were instituted by the respondent against the petitioner before the Trial Court. In the said proceedings, the respondent having filed an application for interim maintenance, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 31.03.2021, allowing

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶27

the application I.A.No.1 and directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the respondent by holding as under:

¶28

"The petitioners have filed application under Section 23[1] of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, [hereinafter it is referred as Domestic Violence Act] seeking Interim Monthly Maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the 1^st petitioner and Rs.10,000/- to the 2^nd petitioner as towards maintenance.

¶29

2. The application is supported with an affidavit sworn to by the petitioner wherein she has stated that the averments made in the petition be treated as part and parcel of the affidavit. Further stated that, she was married to the respondent No.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2016 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Nakshatra Convention Hall, Nanjangud Road, Mysuru. Further stated that after the marriage, the respondents have subjected her to Domestic Violence as morefully stated in the petition. It is further stated that the respondent No.1 is B.E. graduate and working at M.N.C company and getting Salary of Rs.70,000/-p.m. though he is capable of maintaining the petitioners. Further stated that, the petitioner No. 1 has no means to maintain herself and daughter and she has been in difficulties to maintain her basic necessities. Upon these grounds, it is prayed to allow the application.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶32

3. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has filed objection denying the entire case of the petitioner as false except admitting the marital relationship between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1. The alleged Domestic Violence asserted by the petitioner No.1 has been specifically denied by the respondent. It is specifically contended that, the petitioner No.1 herself left the house of respondents and she caused torture to make respondents with intention to make separate house, the petitioner stayed with respondents only for few days, thereafter the petitioner No.1 started to be harassing the respondents and threatening them by filing complaints and further taken contention that, the petitioner has not look after the old aged parents of respondent and without any reason she trying to commit suicide and also she filed false complaint against the respondents. Further contended that, the respondent has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of Hon'ble III Addl.Family court, Mysuru, same is pending for adjudication and with malafide intention filed this false intention. Upon these grounds, it is prayed to reject the application.

¶33

4. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record. The following point would arise for consideration are as under:

¶34

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the interim maintenance as sought for?

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶37

5. The answer to the aforesaid point is Partly in the Affirmative for following;

¶38

::REASONS::

¶39

6. Point No.1: In this case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent No.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2016 as per the Hindu rites and customs. It is also admitted fact that after the marriage, the petitioner No.1 and respondents were residing together in a matrimonial house. From this fact, it could be said that there exist Domestic relationship between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1. Further, it is admitted that from the wedlock of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 the 2nd petitioner born.

¶40

7. Before appreciating the facts lead by petitioner and contention taken in the objection statement by the respondent, it is necessary to have glance of the object of the Domestic

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioners under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, is allowed in part.

¶43

The respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioners towards maintenance of petitioners from the date of the petition till pending disposal of the petition."

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶46

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached

¶47

the Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.123/2024 which was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 23.11.2024 passed in Crl.R.P.No.123/2024 by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, thereby confirming the order passed by the Trial Court and holding as under:

¶48

"This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. by the Revision Petitioners challenging the order passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru in C.Mis. 56/2020 dated 31.3.2021 directing the 1st revision Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm to the Respondents from the date of petition till pending disposal of the petition.

¶49

2. In the petition it is contended that the 1st revision Petitioner and the 1st Respondent are the legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 24.4.2016. Out of their wedlock, 2nd Respondent was born. The revision Petitioners 2 and 3 are the in-laws and revision Petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of the 1st Respondent. After the marriage, revision Petitioners are looking after the 1st Respondent with love and affection, but the 1st Respondent has not respected the husband and in-laws and she was always demanding the husband to arrange separate rented house. Due to the harassment and force of the 1st Respondent separate rented house was arranged and husband and wife were started residing

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶52

in a rented house. Even then also the 1st Respondent was not looking after the husband with love and affection. She used to abuse the in-laws and harass them like anything.

¶53

3. Further it is contended that the 1st Respondent also filed a petition before the Family Court in MC 217/2020 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Whereas the said petition was came to be dismissed. However the Family Court has directed the revision 1st Petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the 1^st Respondent. As per the order passed in MC 217/2020, the 1^st revision Petitioner has paid the entire arrears of maintenance and he has totally paid Rs.3,86,000/-. Inspite of it, the 1^st Respondent/wife has field C.Mis.56/2020 under Section 9[b] and 37[20][c] of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 before the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru. Wherein the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- was ordered in favour of wife and child and 1st revision Petitioner is directed to pay the interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- to the Respondents pending disposal of the petition.

¶54

4. Aggrieved by the said order, this present criminal revision petition is filed on the following grounds:

¶55

1. The Respondents are already awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in MC 217/2020, inspite of it the Trial Court has erred in directing the 1st revision Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶58

2. Now the Respondents are filing recovery proceedings with respect to the maintenance ordered in MC 217/2020 as well as with respect to interim maintenance ordered in C.Mis.56/2020 which is not maintainable.

¶59

3. The 1st Petitioner is regularly paying the maintenance as per the order passed in MC 217/2020.

¶60

Hence, it is prayed to set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 31.3.2021 passed in C.Mis.56/2020 directing the 1st revision Petitioner to pay the maintenance.

¶61

5. In response to the Court notice, the Respondents appeared through their counsel and filed the objections stating that 1st Petitioner is a B.E. graduate and he was working in MNC Company and drawing handsome salary of more than Rs.80,000/- pm. The interim maintenance awarded in favour of the Respondents @ Rs.10,000/- is a meagre amount. The 1^st Respondent is not having any source of income for her livelihood and she is residing in her parents house along with her daughter and she is entirely depending upon her parents for the livelihood to herself and to her daughter. The interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm and also maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm ordered in MC 217/2020 is not an exorbitant. The 1st revision Petitioner is having financial capacity to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm along with maintenance Rs.10,000/- pm ordered in MC 217/2020. Further it is contended that if the interim maintenance is canceled the Respondents will be put to untold hardship

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶64

and injury as they are not having any source of income except the maintenance amount payable by the 1st revision Petitioner. Among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶65

6. The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners has produced the certified copy of order, petition, objection, Judgment and Decree of MC 217/2020, order-sheet of Ex.No.34/2022, Ex.No.84/2023 and Ex.No.3/2023 and F.I.R. Hence the trial court record is not secured.

¶66

7. Heard the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties. The learned Counsel for Respondents in support of his submission has relied on the decision reported in AIR 2017 SC 1640 in a case of Manish Jain V/s. Akansha Jain. Perused the materials on record.

¶67

8. Now the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are as follows:

¶68

1. Whether the revision Petitioners prove that the order of Trial Court dated 31.3.2021 passed on I.A. 1 under Section 23[1] of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, is liable to be set aside?

¶69

2. What Order?

¶70

9. The findings of this Court to the aforesaid points are as follows:

¶71

Point No.1: In the negative.

¶72

Point No.2: As per final order for the following;

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶75

REASONS

¶76

10. Point No.1 : The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners vehemently argued that the 1st Respondent/wife has filed a case in MC 217/2020 before the III Additional Prl. Family Court at Mysuru seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. Whereas after contesting the case, the said case was came to be dismissed. However the Family Court has directed the 1st revision Petitioner/husband to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and daughter. Accordingly the 1st revision Petitioner is regularly paying the monthly maintenance @ Rs.10,000/till the date. Further he submitted that in the meanwhile, the 1st Respondent also filed a case in C.Mis.56/2020 against the Petitioners under Section 9[b] and 37[20][c] of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. Wherein the Trial Court also directed the 1st revision Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance to the wife and child pending disposal of the petition. Further he submitted that since the 1st revision Petitioner is already paying the maintenance to the Respondents @ Rs.10,000/- pm as ordered by the Family Court in MC 217/2020, the interim maintenance ordered by the Trial Court in C.Mis.56/2020 is not sustainable under law. Further he submitted that the 1st revision Petitioner is having responsibility to look after his parents i.e., revision Petitioners 2 and 3 and he is drawing meager salary out of which he is not able to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm in addiction to the maintenance ordered in

¶77

11 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶79

MC 217/2020. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the revision petition and set aside the interim maintenance order dated 31.3.2021 passed by the Trial Court.

¶80

11. Per contra, the learned Counsel for Respondents vehemently argued that in MC 217/2020, the Respondents have not sought any maintenance, however the Family Court considering the fact that wife and child have no source of income for their livelihood, the Court has suo-moto ordered the husband to pay the maintenance to the wife and child @ Rs.10,000/- pm. Since the husband and in-laws were subjected the 1^st Respondent for cruelty and also they thrown the wife and child out of the matrimonial home, she was forced to file the case in C.Mis.56/2020 under Domestic Violence Act. In the said case, the Trial Court has directed the 1st revision Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance pending disposal of the case. Further he argued that the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm and the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- as ordered in MC 217/2020, the 1st revision Petitioner is liable to pay totally Rs.20,000/- pm which is not exorbitant. Further he submitted that 1st revision Petitioner is working as an engineer in MNC Company and he is drawing handsome salary. But the 1^st revision Petitioner has intentionally avoided and he did not produced his salary certificate before the Trial Court. Hence, the Trial Court has taken an adverse inference against the 1^st revision Petitioner. Further he submitted that the 1st revision Petitioner is drawing handsome salary of more than Rs.80,000/- and

¶81

12 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶83

he is capable of paying interim maintenance in addition to the maintenance ordered in MC 217/2020. Further he submitted that the 2nd Respondent i.e., his daughter is aged about 8 years now and she is going to School. The 1st revision Petitioner is struggling to lead her life and to build the future of the child without having any source of income. The wife and daughter are entirely depending upon the maintenance payable by the 1^st revision Petitioner. Further he submitted that since the interim maintenance ordered by the Trial Court is not exorbitant, there is no need to set aside the order of interim maintenance which is also very much maintainable. Further in support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has relied on the decision reported in AIR 2017 SC 1640 wherein it is observed that:

¶84

“In present case, at the time of claiming maintenance pendente lite when the respondent-wife had no sufficient income capable of supporting herself, High Court was justified in ordering maintenance. However, the maintenance amount of Rs.60,000/- ordered by the High Court (in addition to Rs.10,000/- paid under the proceedings of D.V.Act) appears to be on higher side and in interest of justice, same is reduced to Rs.25,000/- per month. The maintenance pendente lite of Rs.25,000/- is to be paid to the respondent-wife by

¶85

13 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶87

appellant-husband (in addition to Rs.10,000/paid under the proceedings of D.V. Act)”.

¶88

12. Keeping in mind the law laid down in the above said decision, I have thoroughly gone through the materials on record. No doubt the Family Court in MC 217/2020 at para No.37, it is observed that:

¶89

“The Respondent/ husband is working at MNC company, his father is retired AEE and getting pension, his mother is a SDA in Aided School and getting a good salary, they are not depending on anybody. The Petitioner/ wife is residing at her parental house since January 2020 along with child and she fought the litigation for more than a year. She appears to be entirely dependent on her parents and other family members. Though she contending that he gets Rs.70,000/- pm towards his salary, but he denied and he admits that he is getting Rs.39,000/-, take home salary of Rs.15,000/-, he admits that he is not furnished his salary certificates. When he admits he is employee in private company and non production of his salary certificates, it presumes that he is getting handsome salary, but what was the impediment to him to produce his salary certificate to prove his contention. Hence, non production of his salary certificate, adverse inference can be

¶90

14 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶92

drawn against him. He himself admits that the Petitioner is a housewife”.

¶93

13. With the above said observations the Family Court while dismissing the petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act has directed the Respondents to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and child.

¶94

14. It is relevant to note that in MC 217/2020 order was passed on 23.4.2021. Whereas in C.Mis.56/2020, the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru was ordered the interim maintenance on 31.3.2021. It shows that the interim maintenance ordered by the Trial Court is passed prior to the maintenance ordered in MC 217/2020. When such being the case, the order of Trial Court directing the 1st Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm to the wife and child is not exorbitant and sustainable under law because at the time of passing the interim maintenance there was no any other order directing the husband to pay the maintenance to the wife and child.

¶95

15. Now the question that would arise is that the 1^st revision Petitioner is paying maintenance to the Respondents as per the order passed in MC 217/2020. Further the Respondents have denied that the 1st revision Petitioner has paid the maintenance upto date as per the order passed in MC 217/2020. Further on perusal of the petition it shows that for recovery of maintenance the 1st Respondent has filed recovery proceedings in Ex.57/2021, Ex.34/2022 and Ex.3/2023 and Ex.84/23. From this, it shows that the 1st revision Petitioner is a

¶96

15 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶98

defaulter in payment of maintenance. Only when the 1st Respondent filed the recovery petition, then only he used to pay the maintenance. Further it is to be taken into note that only after issuing direction, he has produced the salary certificates for the month of May and June 2024. No doubt in the month of May 2024, gross salary was Rs.50,147/- and home take salary was Rs.47,619/-. In the month of June 2024, the 1st revision Petitioner has drawn net pay of Rs.51,119/- and the gross salary was Rs.53,647/-. No doubt the 1st revision Petitioner has not disputed the fact that his father i.e., 2nd revision Petitioner is a retired AEE and drawing pension and his mother 3rd revision Petitioner is working as a SDA in an Aided School and getting good salary. When such being the case, the mother and father of 1st revision Petitioner are not depending upon him. Under these circumstances, considering the facts of the case that the 1st revision Petitioner is drawing net pay of more than Rs.51,000/and also considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court relied by the learned Counsel for Respondents cited supra, this Court is of the clear view that the interim maintenance awarded by the Trial Court directing the 1st revision Petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- pm as interim maintenance is not exorbitant in addition to the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm as ordered in MC 217/2020.

¶99

16. It is relevant to note that the 1st revision Petitioner has not denied that his wife 1st Respondent is a house wife and she has no source of income. Further the age of the

¶100

16 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶102

2^nd Respondent i.e., child of 1st revision Petitioner is more than 8 years and she is going to School. When such being the case, interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm in addition to the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- pm ordered in MC 217/2020 total Rs.20,000/pm maintenance is not exorbitant considering the present cost of living and cost of education. Further it is to be taken into note that as observed above as on the date of order passed by the Trial Court directing to pay the interim maintenance, MC 217/2020 was still pending for disposal. Only after the order passed by the Trial Court in C.Mis.56/2020, the order of maintenance came to be passed in MC 217/2020. Hence, this Court has not find any illegality in the order of the Trial Court dated 31.3.2021 passed on I.A.1 under Section 23[1] of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, directing the 1st revision Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm to the Respondents. This Court is of the considered view that the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm is not exorbitant in addition to the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- pm as ordered in MC 217/2020. Consequently, this Court is of the clear view that absolutely there is no justifiable ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Trial Court. Hence, this Court answer Point No. 1 in the negative.

¶103

17. Point No.2 : In view of the above reasons, this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶104

ORDER

¶105

17 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶107

The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the Revision Petitioners under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶108

Consequently, the order of the Trial Court in C.Mis.56/2020 dated 31.3.2021 directing the 1^st revision Petitioner to pay the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm to the wife and child from the date of petition till pending disposal of the petition, is hereby confirmed.

¶109

Office to send the Trial Court records along with copy of this order forthwith."

¶110

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the

¶111

light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 2 SCC 324 , the impugned orders deserve to be set aside, since the Family Court has already awarded maintenance in M.C.No.217/2020 in favour of the respondent against the petitioner.

¶112

The said submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted in as much as the said order passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.217/2020 was on 23.04.2021 while the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.56/2020 under the D.V. Act was prior to the said order passed by the Family Court. Consequently, merely because the

¶113

18 -

¶114

NC: 2025:KHC:8378 CRL.P No. 1103 of 2025

¶115

Family Court passed subsequent order of maintenance on 23.04.2021, the same cannot be made the basis to interfere with the earlier order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court under the D.V. Act and as such, the said contention cannot be accepted.

¶116

Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and

¶117

reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and Revisional Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶118

The trial Court before whom Crl.Misc.No.56/2020 is

¶119

pending is directed to dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶120

SD/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶121

MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 93

Sri C Gopalakrishna v. Smt Sowdahamini R M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Gopalakrishna v. Smt Sowdahamini R M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Keerthana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sushma and Staff Vs State of Karnataka

Manapuram Finance Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Prathapa MD Vs State of Karnataka

Mahaveera Credit Co. Operative Society (L) Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajay. P Vs State of Karnataka