Dismissed¶60

R. Roopa v. a R Somashekar

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2026CRL.P/1143/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 CrPC maintenance reduction upheld; Section 482 CrPC petition dismissed. Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, CRL.P No.1143/2018 c/w CRL.P No.467/2022, decided 24-03-2026, Coram: Justice R. Nataraj. Trial court award of Rs.8,000/- p.m. to wife and minor son reduced by Revisional Court to Rs.4,000/- p.m. for son till majority; wife's maintenance untouched; reduction held just and proper; no interference. Husband-lecturer's salary of Rs.47,991/- (Oct. 2015) contended by wife's counsel. Maintenance, revisional court, Chitradurga.

What did the court decide?

None - both criminal petitions dismissed; the Revisional Court's order reducing maintenance to Rs.4,000/- per month for petitioner No.2 (wife's award unaltered) stands maintained. ¶60

R. Roopa Vs a R Somashekar — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - both criminal petitions dismissed; the Revisional Court's order reducing maintenance to Rs.4,000/- per month for petitioner No.2 (wife's award unaltered) stands maintained.

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revisional Court erred in reducing the maintenance awarded by the trial Court (including the grievance that the legitimate right of petitioner No.1 was denied). +1 more

¶54

Court's answer

Having regard to the reasons recorded by the Revisional Court for reducing the maintenance payable to petitioner No.2 and the fact that the petitioners reside in a remote village in Chitradurga, the maintenance awarded by the Revisional Court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference; the petition is dismissed.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

The Revisional Court had not altered or modified the maintenance awarded to petitioner No.1; it had only altered the maintenance in so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, and the respondent did not dispute his employment as a lecturer.

¶56

Key takeaways

In view of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.1143/2018, Criminal Petition No.467/2022 is also dismissed.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R. Nataraj J., 24.03.2026) dismissed two criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC arising from a Section 125 CrPC maintenance dispute between wife, minor son and husband-lecturer. The trial Court (1st Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga, Crl.Mis.No.708/2012, order dt. 21.01.2017) had awarded Rs.8,000/- per month to each petitioner; the Special 2nd Addl. District & Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.26/2017 (order dt. 20.09.2017) reduced the maintenance to Rs.4,000/- per month for the son till majority, leaving the wife's award unaltered. Holding that the Revisional Court had recorded reasons for the reduction and that the reduced maintenance was 'just and proper', the High Court declined interference and dismissed Crl.P No.1143/2018; consequently Crl.P No.467/2022 (filed by the husband) was also dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:16532 CRL.P No. 1143 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 467 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1143 OF 2018

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 467 OF 2022

¶9

IN CRL.P No. 1143/2018

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

R. ROOPA D/O MARIKUNTE RANGAPPA W/O A.R. SOMASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶12

MASTER YASHAH S/O A.R. SOMASHEKHAR

¶13

AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SINCE THE PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR

¶16

REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER WHO IS PETITIONER NO.2 HEREIN.

¶17

BOTH ARE R/A GOPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST 577001

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

A R SOMASHEKAR

NC: 2026:KHC:16532 CRL.P No. 1143 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 467 of 2022

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

S/O V. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, LECTURER, GOVT.PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, VARTHUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-563 125.

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI. JAGADISH J R., ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.708/2012 DATED 21.01.2017 PASSED BY 1^ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA AS PER ANNEXURE 'C' AND ORDER DATED 20.09.2017 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2^ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.REV. PETITION NO.26/2017.

¶29

IN CRL.P NO. 467/2022

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

A.R.SOMASHEKHAR S/O V.RUDRAPPA, 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.703, 2^ND CROSS, ANANDAGIRI EXT, BEHIND GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560024

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

(BY SRI.J.R.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

R.ROOPA D/O MARIKUNTE RANGAPPA, 50 YEARS,

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16532 CRL.P No. 1143 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 467 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

MASTER YASHAS

¶39

S/O A.R.SOMASHEKHAR, 15 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GOPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TQ-577522, CHITRADURGA DIST.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)

¶42

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2017 IN CRL.RP.NO.26/2017 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶43

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

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.01.2017 passed by the 1^st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga in Crl.Mis.No.708/2012 as well as the order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the 2^nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal Revision Petition No.26/2017.

¶47

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16532 CRL.P No. 1143 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 467 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The petitioner No.1 is the wife, while the petitioner No.2 is the son of the respondent. The petitioners filed Crl.Mis.No.708/2012 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') claiming maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶50

The petition was opposed by the respondent, following which the trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties and in terms of an order dated 21.01.2017 allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed Cr.R.P.No.26/2017. The Revisional Court in terms of an order dated 20.09.2017 allowed the revision in part and reduced the maintenance to a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2 till he attained the age of majority. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Revisional Court failed to note that the respondent is a lecturer drawing a sum of Rs.47,991/- as on October, 2015 and therefore the respondent had sufficient means to pay

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16532 CRL.P No. 1143 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 467 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

maintenance to the petitioners. He also contends that both the petitioners are residing in the house of the father of petitioner No.1 and they have no source of income. He contends that the petitioner No.2 is a school going boy, who has heavy expenses to meet and therefore, the Revisional Court committed an error in reducing the maintenance awarded by the trial Court and also in denying the legitimate right of the petitioner No.1.

¶55

The learned counsel for the respondent is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions.

¶56

A perusal of the order passed by the Revisional Court would show that the Revisional Court had not altered or modified the maintenance awarded to the petitioner No.1 but had only altered the maintenance in so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned. The respondent has not disputed the fact that he was employed as a lecturer.

¶57

Having regard to the fact that the Revisional Court has recorded reasons for reducing the maintenance payable to the petitioner No.2 and also having regard to the fact that the petitioners are residing in a remote village in Chitradurga, the

¶58