D Karibasavanagouda S/O Maharudragouda Vs Smt. Sunitha Alias Rekha, W/O D. Karibasavanagouda

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:262 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100213 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

D. KARIBASAVANAGOUDA S/O MAHARUDRAGOUDA AGE. 46 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/O. UCHANGIDURGA VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, PIN 583113. DIST. BALLARI (NOW VIJAYAPUR)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRAKASH R. BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. SUNITHA @ REKHA, W/O D. KARIBASAVANAGOUDA AGE. 31 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SRI. GURU KOTTURESWARA NILAYA, ANJANEYA EXTENSION, KOTTUR TOWN, KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-581204.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO KINDLY ALLOW THE PETITION AND KINDLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT.HOSAPETE), IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO-5031/2020 MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KUDLIGI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.-281/2013 UNDER PROTECTION OF WOMEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION & ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC-D:262 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶22

Heard Sri.Prakash R. Badiger and Sri.Srinivas B.

¶23

Naik, for the parities.

¶24

The Husband is the revision petitioner, challenging

¶25

the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate in Criminal Miscellaneous No.281 of 2013, allowing the application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V.Act’ for short) and allowing the petition in part.

¶26

The operative portion of the order of the Trial Magistrate reads as under:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

“The petition filed by the petitioner U/Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is allowed in part.

¶29

The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to the petitioner from the date of this petition.

¶30

Further respondent No.1 is directed to provide accommodation to petitioner at Kottur.

¶31

Further respondent No.1 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the petitioner.”

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC-D:262 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Being aggrieved by the same, the husband filed a revision petition, having earlier filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.5031 of 2020.

¶36

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by order dated 31.03.2023 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate.

¶37

Being further aggrieved by the same, husband is before this Court.

¶38

Sri.Prakash Badiger, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a sum of ₹25,000/- was ordered in the matrimonial proceedings towards the maintenance and in addition to the same, a sum of ₹5,000/- was ordered in the present case. Therefore, the total amount is on the higher side and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶39

Per contra , Sri.Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent, opposes the grounds urged in the petition by contending that there are huge arrears more than ₹7,00,000/towards the arrears of maintenance and petitioner has not chosen to pay the maintenance in the present case as well as in

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC-D:262 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the matrimonial proceedings. Therefore, the petition needs to be dismissed.

¶44

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶45

On such perusal of material on record, it is just and necessary to note that the intention of the legislature is to provide one more forum for the aggrieved wife to get her the grievances redressed by enacting the D.V.Act.

¶46

Same can be inferred by referring to Section 36 of the D.V.Act, which reads as under:

¶47

“Section 36 – Application for maintenance by aggrieved person.

¶48

(1) An aggrieved person may, at any time, make an application to the Magistrate for an order of maintenance under this Act.

¶49

(2) The Magistrate may, after giving notice to the respondent and after such inquiry as he deems fit, pass an order directing the respondent to pay maintenance to the aggrieved person, including any arrears due.

¶50

(3) The amount of maintenance shall be determined having regard to the income and other properties of the respondent and the needs of the aggrieved person and her children.”

¶51

5 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC-D:262 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

On careful perusal of the above provision, it is crystal clear that the provisions of the D.V.Act, are not in derogation, but in addition to the other reliefs available to an aggrieved wife.

¶55

Hence, the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner by Sri.Prakash Badiger, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is acting as a double penalty to the petitioner, cannot be countenanced in law.

¶56

Thus, the petition needs to be dismissed. Moreover, petitioner has not chosen to pay the arrears of maintenance to the tune of more than ₹7,00,000/- and therefore, there is no merit in the present petition to admit it for further consideration.

¶57