Dismissed¶61

Siddappa S/O Revaneppa Khoder v. Durgamma W/O Siddappa Khoder

Karnataka HC20 Aug 2025CRL.RP/100161/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance; quantum challenge; enhancement upheld; Sessions Court revisional orders dated 11.02.2020; autorickshaw driver income Rs.800-1,000/day; ancestral agricultural property share (RTC Exs.P1/P2); wife's provision-store income claim unproved; minor daughter's maintenance enhanced to Rs.2,500 p.m.; wife's maintenance Rs.1,500 p.m.; Crl.RP 100161/2020 c/w Crl.P 100897/2020 dismissed; Cr.P.C. Sections 125, 397, 401, 482; BNSS Section 528; High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench; Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty; decision date 20-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

None; both petitions dismissed and the maintenance rates fixed by the Revisional Court (Rs.1,500/- p.m. to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- p.m. to respondent No.2) stand. ¶61

Siddappa S/O Revaneppa Khoder Vs Durgamma W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both petitions dismissed and the maintenance rates fixed by the Revisional Court (Rs.1,500/- p.m. to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- p.m. to respondent No.2) stand.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the monthly maintenance fixed by the courts below (Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2) is on the higher side and warrants interference/quashing by this Court.

¶50

Court's answer

The order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 granted by the Revisional Court is fully justified and cannot be said to be on the higher side.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

In addition to daily earnings of Rs.800/- to Rs.1,000/- as an autorickshaw driver, the petitioner has a share in the agricultural lands covered by Exs.P1 and P2 (RTC extracts standing in his father's name), the properties being ancestral and not in dispute as such.

¶54

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contention before the Trial Court that respondent No.1 owns a provision store and has her own source of income was not proved.ratio¶54
The relationship between the parties is not in dispute; respondent No.2, the petitioner's daughter, is being taken care of by respondent No.1 and is a student aged about 20 years now.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Karnataka HC, Dharwad Bench, 20.08.2025, S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.) — CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2020 c/w CRL.P No. 100897 of 2020: Husband-petitioner (an autorickshaw driver earning Rs.800/- to Rs.1,000/- per day, with a share in ancestral agricultural lands whose RTC extracts, Exs.P1-P2, stand in his father's name) challenged the Magistrate's award of Rs.1,500/- p.m. each to his wife and minor daughter and the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge's orders dated 11.02.2020 dismissing his revision (Crl.R.P.137/2018) and enhancing the daughter's maintenance to Rs.2,500/- p.m. (Crl.R.P.148/2018). His plea that the wife had independent income from a provision store failed to be proved; relationship of the parties and the daughter's care by the mother were undisputed. Holding the quantum fully justified and not on the higher side, the High Court dismissed both petitions by a common oral order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10543 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 100897 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100161 OF 2020 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100897 OF 2020 (482 (CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶9

IN CRL.R.P. NO. 100161 OF 2020:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SIDDAPPA S/O REVANEPPA KHODER, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR WORK, R/O: KAVALETTU, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 123.

¶12

… PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE AND SRI. S.A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by RAKESH S RAKESH HARIHAR S Location: HIGHCOURT OF HARIHAR KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

DURGAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA KHODER, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINESS, R/O: KAVALETTU, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 123.

¶17

KUMARI PREMA D/O SIDDAPPA KHODER, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: KAVALETTU, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI, RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1, DURGAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA KHODER.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10543 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 100897 of 2020

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM CRL.R.P. NO.148/2018, FROM THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, HAVERI, (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR), AND ALSO RECORDS FROM ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDL. JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR, IN CRL.MISC.NO.25/2015 AND TO EXAMINE THE SAME IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT IN CRL.R.P. NO.148/2018 DATED 11/02/2020 ABOUT ITS CORRECTNESS, LEGALITY, PROPRIETY AND FINDINGS THEREON AND TO SET ASIDE THE SAME AND TO PASS AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/05/2018, PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.25/2015, BY ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDITIONAL JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 11/02/2020, PASSED IN CRL. REV. P. NO.148/2018, BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR).

¶24

IN CRL.P. NO. 100897 OF 2020:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SIDDAPPA S/O REVANEPPA KHODER @ NARAYANAPPANAVAR,

¶27

AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR WORK, R/O: KAVALETTU, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶28

… PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

DURGAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA KHODER @ NARAYANAPPANAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINESS, R/O: KAVALETTU, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 123.

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10543 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 100897 of 2020

¶33

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

KUMARI PREMA D/O SIDDAPPA KHODER @ NARAYANAPPANAVAR, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: KAVALETTU, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI, RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1, DURGAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA KHODER.

¶36

… RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶38

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.(UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM CRL.R.P. NO.137/2018, FROM THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, HAVERI, (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR), AND ALSO RECORDS FROM ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDL. JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR, IN CRL.MISC.NO.25/2015 AND TO EXAMINE THE SAME IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT IN CRL.R.P. NO.137/2018 DATED 11/02/2020 TO SET ASIDE THE SAME AND TO PASS AN ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 09/05/2018, PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.25/2015 (FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C., BY ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDITIONAL JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION DATED 11/02/2020, PASSED IN CRL. REV.P. NO.137/2018, BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR).

¶39

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10543 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 100897 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶44

These two petitions are between the same parties and therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶46

Respondents herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner, who is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance and had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.25/2025 before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate. The said petition was partly allowed on 09.05.2018 and petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the date of order. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein had filed Criminal Revision Petition No.137/2018 and seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, respondents had filed Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2018. The Court of II Additional

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10543 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 100897 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

District and Session Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur vide order dated 11.02.2020 dismissed Criminal Revision Petition No.137/2018 and partly allowed Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2018 and the maintenance awarded to respondent No.2 was enhanced to a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court in the above captioned two petitions.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petitions submits that maintenance amount awarded in favour of the respondent No.2 is on the higher side. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has justified the orders impugned herein.

¶51

The respondent No.1, who is the wife of the petitioner, had examined herself before the Trial Court as PW1 and two documents were got marked as Exs.P1 and P2 in support of her claim. Her father was examined as PW2. The petitioner, who is an autorickshaw driver had

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10543 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 100897 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

examined himself as RW1 before the Trial Court and his brother was examined as RW2. 24 documents were got marked in support of his defence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, after appreciating that, in addition to the daily earning of the petitioner as an autorickshaw driver to the tune of Rs.800/- to Rs.1,000/- per day, he also had income from his agricultural properties, has awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Exs.P1 and P2 are the RTC extracts of the agricultural lands which stand in the name of father of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the said properties are ancestral properties and therefore, petitioner also has a share in the said property. Though petitioner has contended before the Trial Court that respondent No.1 owns a provision store and she has her own source of income, he has failed to prove the same.

¶55

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion

¶56

that the order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10543 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 100897 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

month to the respondent No.2 granted by the Revisional Court is fully justified and it cannot be said that the same is on the higher side. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2, who is the daughter of the petitioner is being taken care of by the respondent No.1. She is a student aged about 20 years now.

¶60

7. Under the circumstances, I do not find any

¶61

merit in these two petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.

¶62

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶63

RSH / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 61

Siddappa S/O Revaneppa Khoder v. Durgamma W/O Siddappa Khoder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddappa S/O Revaneppa Khoder v. Durgamma W/O Siddappa Khoder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivamma Gayakwad D/O G Chinna Papa Rao Vs State of Karnataka

G Thulasi Rao S/O Nagoji Rao Gayakwad Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shrinath S/O Tulasidas Kamat Vs the State of Karnataka

Salman S/O Mahamadrafik Mulla Vs the State

Abdul Rehman S/O Gaffasab Farash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ravi N Alias Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka