Diwakar M Vs Megha P

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:346 CRL.P No. 11844 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11844 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DIWAKAR M S/O R. MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT PARVATHI NILAYA, PILLE LAYOUT, 3^RD CROSS, BEHIND VARTHAKARA BHAVANA, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 313.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MEGHA P W/O DIWAKAR M., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT 2^ND CROSS, SOMANNA LAYOUT, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 313.

¶12

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. PARAMESWARAPPA C. AND SRI. ANIL KUMAR A.S., ADVOCATES)

¶15

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.09.2024 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.38/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:346 CRL.P No. 11844 of 2024

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition by the respondent in Crl.A.No.38/2024 on the file of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, is directed against the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 whereby the Sessions Court directed the Trial Court to take stringent steps against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent and issue further directions in this regard.

¶22

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

¶23

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – wife having instituted the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, ‘DV Act’) against the petitioner – husband, the Trial Court passed an order dated 27.11.2023 granting interim maintenance in a sum of Rs.4,000/- to be paid by the petitioner – husband to the respondent – wife in Crl.Misc.No.573/2022 dated 27.11.2023. Aggrieved by the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the Trial Court, the respondent – wife filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.38/2024 before the Sessions Court (Appellate Court). During pendency of the

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:346 CRL.P No. 11844 of 2024

¶26

appeal, the respondent – wife contended that even though interim maintenance was ordered by the Trial Court in various Criminal Miscellaneous, the petitioner – husband had not complied with the any of the orders directing maintenance to be paid to the respondent – wife and pursuant to the submissions made on behalf of respondent – wife, the First Appellate Court proceeded to pass the impugned order directing the Trial Court to take necessary steps for recovery of maintenance ordered in various case against the petitioner.

¶27

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims in the present petition and in the appeal before the Sessions Court as well as in the main DV proceedings before the Trial Court, it is an undisputed fact and matter of record that the proceedings in Crl.A.No.38/2024 is restricted / limited to enhancement of interim maintenance as ordered by the Trial Court. In other words, the scope of the proceedings in Crl.A.No.38/2024 being restricted to the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court, there was no occasion for the First Appellate Court to direct the Trial Court to take stringent action for recovery of maintenance in all cases, which was clearly

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:346 CRL.P No. 11844 of 2024

¶30

beyond scope and ambit of the appeal pending before the First Appellate Court and consequently, the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 deserves to be quashed by directing the First Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible bearing in mind the timelines prescribed under the DV Act and by issuing further directions in this regard.

¶31

5. In the result, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶34

(ii) The impugned order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, is hereby set aside.

¶35

(iii) The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of Crl.A.No.38/2024 bearing in mind the timelines prescribed under the DV Act.

¶36

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent – wife to take recourse to such remedies as available in law for recovery of various amounts as