Dismissed

Sunil D R v. Sharada S Raikar

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026CRL.RP/1674/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the ex-parte interim maintenance order of Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded under the PWDV Act. The court directed the petitioner to continue payment and held that the quantum would be decided on merits after evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to continue paying interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month without default; quantum to be decided on merits.

Sunil D R Vs Sharada S Raikar — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26009 CRL.RP No. 1674 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1674 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SUNIL D.R., S/O.D. RAVIPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.603 MIG-2, HUDCO, III PHASE SHARADADEVI NAGARA MYSORE-570 023.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SHARADA S. RAIKAR W/O. SUNIL D.R, D/O. K. SUDESH RAIKAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT DEEPA NILAYA 1^ST FLOOR, HOIGEBAIL ROAD ASHOK NAGAR MANGALORE-575 006.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. K. SHARANJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT THAT IS VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K.MANGALURU, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.188/2025 DATED 12.09.2025 AND THE

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26009 CRL.RP No. 1674 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE COURT OF JMFC III COURT, MANGALURU D.K. ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 25 OF PWDV ACT DATED 20.12.2025 FOR MODIFICATION OF THE EXPARTE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT U/S 23(2) OF PWDV ACT 2005 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE INTERIM APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENT FILED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT U/S 23(2) OF THE PWDV ACT IN ITS ENTIRELY.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard

¶26

learned counsel of the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

This revision petition is filed against the interimmaintenance award passed by the Trial Court, wherein the Trial Court, while entertaining an application filed under Section 23(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, taken note of the affidavit filed by the respondent herein and also taken note of declared income of respondent No.1 that is in a sum of Rs.85,000/- per month and the petitioner in her assets and liabilities stated that respondent No.1 is working as Risk Manager Engineer at Amazon, Bengaluru and taking note

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:26009 CRL.RP No. 1674 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

of Section 23(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act comes to the conclusion that there is no bar to grant ex-parte interim order.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner is getting only salary of Rs.38,000/- and the respondent is also earning and all these aspects have to be considered while considering the matter on merits after recording the evidence and granting of interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month is only an interim arrangement. When such being the case and the same is also for subsistence and maintenance of the respondent, the First Appellate Court also while passing the order in Criminal Appeal taken note of said fact into consideration and particularly, taken note of the order passed by the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 comes to the conclusion that it does not require any modification of the same. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court with regard to awarding of an amount of Rs.10,000/- as interim-maintenance, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in exercising the revisional

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:26009 CRL.RP No. 1674 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

jurisdiction and the interim-maintenance awarded is only Rs.10,000/- per month and the same is not exorbitant. However, it is subject to the evidence to be recorded by the Trial Court with regard to income of both the petitioner and the respondent and the Trial Court can decide the same with regard to quantum of maintenance while deciding the matter on merits. The petitioner is directed to continue to pay the same without default.

¶37

With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶39

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sunil D R v. Sharada S Raikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil D R v. Sharada S Raikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Balunayaka Vs P. Devanna

Mr. Mohammed Ashraf Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs M/S E.S.I. Corporation

K R Chidambara Vs State by Woman Police

Mr.Vinay R Vs Mrs.Shilpa v

A Piche Ghani @ Abdul Ghani Vs the State of Karnataka by Madikeri Rural Police Station