Dismissed¶35

J P Puttarajagowda v. Kumari Bhavya

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2025CRL.P/14167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 CrPC maintenance; minor daughter v. father; memo filed by counsel without instructions of natural guardian; closure of maintenance proceedings by Magistrate; revisional court recall and remand for fresh enquiry; inherent and pre-existing right of minor to maintenance; partition suit decree O.S. No.47/2021 as alleged bar left open to Magistrate; S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS petition; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Shivamogga/Soraba; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; petition dismissed. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to place reliance on such documents as he may intend to rely upon during the fresh proceedings before the learned Magistrate. ¶35

J P Puttarajagowda Vs Kumari Bhavya — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revisional Court's order dated 22.12.2022 recalling the Magistrate's order closing the minor's Section 125 maintenance proceedings and remitting the matter for fresh enquiry is justified and free from infirmity, and whether it warrants interference under S.482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The learned counsel, without instructions from the minor's natural guardian, had unilaterally filed a memo resulting in the closure of the maintenance proceedings.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The closure of the maintenance proceedings effected by that memo was prejudicial to the minor's interests.

¶33

Key takeaways

The Revisional Court's order recalling the Magistrate's order and remitting the matter for fresh enquiry is justified and does not suffer from any infirmity.ratio¶33
The minor daughter's right to seek maintenance is inherent and pre-existing against her father.ratio¶27
Whether the decree obtained in the partition suit operates as a bar to the maintenance claim is expressly left open, to be examined by the learned Magistrate during the fresh proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), CRL.P No. 14167 of 2024, decided 16.09.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:36750) — Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS) by a father against the Revisional Court's order dated 22.12.2022 in Crl.RP.No.10031/2022 (V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga at Sagar), which had recalled the Magistrate's closure of his minor daughter's Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance petition and remitted the matter for fresh enquiry. The maintenance proceedings had been closed on a memo filed by the minor's counsel without instructions from her natural guardian. Held: (i) the unilateral memo and resultant closure were prejudicial to the minor's interests; (ii) the Revisional Court's recall-cum-remittal was justified and free from infirmity; (iii) the minor daughter's right to maintenance is inherent and pre-existing against her father; (iv) whether the decree in partition suit O.S. No.47/2021 bars the maintenance claim is a matter left to the learned Magistrate in the fresh proceedings. Petition dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to rely on documents in the fresh proceedings.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36750 CRL.P No. 14167 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14167 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

J P PUTTARAJAGOWDA S/O BANGARAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YALAVALLI VILLAGE, TALUK: SORABA, DISTRICT: SHIVAMOGGA - 577429.

¶8

&PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ANKALKOTE RAJENDRA SHANTAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

KUMARI BHAVYA D/O PUTTARAJAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT. S. B. RAJESHWARI, W/O DR. SOMASHEKAR, R/O NO.139, 2ND MAIN, HWFS LAYOUT, SUNKADA KATTE, BANGALORE-50.

¶12

&RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.10031/2022 DATED 22.12.2022 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36750 CRL.P No. 14167 of 2024

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

SITTING AT SAGAR BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.363/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SORABA.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the husband challenging the

¶21

order dated 22.12.2022 of the Revisional Court passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.10031/2022.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are as under;

¶23

The respondent, a minor daughter, had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance from her father, the petitioner herein. Pending consideration of the maintenance petition, it appears that the learned counsel representing the minor daughter filed a memo seeking closure of the proceedings. Acting on this memo, the learned Magistrate closed the maintenance proceedings.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36750 CRL.P No. 14167 of 2024

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

Subsequently, the respondent3minor, through her natural guardian, filed a revision before the District Court contending that she had never instructed the learned counsel to withdraw the petition. Upon verification of the records, the Revisional Court observed that the respondent, being a minor and under the care and custody of her mother, required protection. Since the maintenance petition had been dismissed on the basis of a memo filed without the permission of her natural guardian, the Revisional Court, in the interest of justice, deemed it appropriate to recall the order of the Magistrate and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the respondent had already obtained a decree in a partition suit (O.S. No.47/2021) and that this should bar her from seeking maintenance. However, this Court is of the view that the minor daughter9s right to seek maintenance is inherent and pre-existing against her father, and whether the decree obtained in the partition

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:36750 CRL.P No. 14167 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

suit operates as a bar is a matter to be examined by the

¶32

learned Magistrate during the fresh proceedings.

¶33

The Revisional Court rightly took note that the learned counsel, without instructions from the natural guardian had unilaterally filed a memo resulting in the closure of the maintenance proceedings, which was prejudicial to the minor9s interests. Therefore, the order of the Revisional Court recalling the Magistrate9s order and remitting the matter for fresh enquiry is justified and does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶34

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief. The order under challenge does not warrant interference.

¶35

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶36

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to place reliance on such documents as he may intend to rely upon

¶37