K Basavaraj S/O Gurulingappa Vs Smt. Prameeela W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

K Basavaraj S/O Gurulingappa Vs Smt. Prameeela W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 (wife) and Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 (son) as fixed by the Courts below remains undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (husband/father) has sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor son, and whether the aggregate monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. 4,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the son) awarded after enhancement is on the higher side.

Court's answer

The petitioner owns land bearing Survey No.87C, measuring 2 acres 42 cents, standing in his name (Exhibit P3, RTC extract); therefore he cannot be said to be a person without means to maintain his wife and child.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the escalation of prices and the present cost of living, the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be on the higher side.

Key takeaways

The criminal revision petition does not merit consideration and is dismissed; the orders under challenge, including the enhanced maintenance in favour of the respondents, accordingly stand.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Ss.397/401, Cr.P.C. by a husband against the enhancement of maintenance granted to his wife and minor son under S.125, Cr.P.C. The Trial Court (Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosapete) had by order dated 11.08.2022 in Crl.M.C. No.435/2018 awarded Rs. 2,000/- p.m. each to the wife and son; the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ballari (Sitting at Hosapete) in Crl.R.P. No.5167/2022 (order dated 24.03.2023) enhanced the wife's maintenance to Rs. 4,000/- p.m. and confirmed the son's. Before the High Court, the petitioner's means were established by the RTC (Exhibit P3) of land bearing Survey No.87C measuring 2 acres 42 cents standing in his name; considering escalation of prices and the present cost of living, the aggregate Rs. 6,000/- p.m. was held not to be on the higher side. Revision petition dismissed. Single Judge: S. Vishwajith Shetty; decided 15.09.2025.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12058 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100288 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

K. BASAVARAJ S/O GURULINGAPPA, AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. AMRAPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI, TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583 115.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. PRAMEEELA W/O K. BASAVARAJ, AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. GONAL VILLAGE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST.VIJAYANAGAR-583 201.

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

NANDAKISHORE S/O K. BASAVARJ, AGE ABOUT 08 YEARS, MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1.

(BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

… RESPONDENTS

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.03.2023 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE), IN CRL. R.P. NO.5167/2022 MODIFIED THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2022 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE, IN CRL.M.C.NO.435/2018 FILED UNDER SEECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.

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

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12058 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2023

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Petitioner is before this Court, assailing the order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.435 of 2018 and the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (Sitting at Hosapete) in Criminal Revision Petition No.5167 of 2022.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Respondents had initiated proceedings before the Court of Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Miscellaneous No.435 of 2018 and in the said proceedings, the Trial Court, based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, partly allowed the petition filed by the respondents and awarded

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12058 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2023

HC-KAR

maintenance at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month respectively to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents had filed Criminal Revision Petition No.5167 of 2022, before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was partly allowed and the monthly maintenance amount awarded to respondent No.1 – wife was enhanced to ₹4,000/- per month, while the monthly maintenance awarded to respondent No.2 – son was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioner is before this Court.

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that respondent No.1 has examined herself in support of her claim as PW1 and had produced three documents before the Trial Court as Exhibits P1 to P3. Exhibit P1 is the marriage invitation card and Exhibit P2 is the marriage photo of petitioner and respondent No.1. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Exhibit P3 is the RTC extract of the land bearing Survey No.87C, which stands in the name of the petitioner. The said land, totally measuring

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12058 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2023

HC-KAR

2 acres 42 cents stands in the name of the petitioner herein. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is not a person without having any means to maintain his wife and child. Considering the escalation of prices and present cost of living, the amount of ₹6,000/- per month awarded to the respondents towards maintenance per month cannot be said to be on the higher side.

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this petition does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

JUDGE

KGK & RSH / CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 56