Mr Karan Chandrashekar Vs Mrs Divya Karan Chandrashekar

MRS.DIVYA KARAN CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS D/O MR PRADEEP LAL RESIDING AT 161, 6TH CROSS 1ST MAIN, ST BED LAYOUT KORAMANGALA 1STBLOCK BANGALORE - 560 034 KARNATAKA.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. PRATIMA S.K, ADV.)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO PASS NECESSARY ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.11.2024 PASSED BY HONBLE LXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL, BANGALORE IN CRL.A NO.25138/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:4427 CRL.RP No. 1759 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS 2023 is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 13.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.25138 of 2024 by the Court of LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and the order dated 09.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.No. 157 of 2023 by the Court of I MMTC, Bengaluru

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appering for the parties.

¶27

The respondent - wife has initiated proceedings

¶28

against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate, Bengaluru under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for the 'PWDV Act') seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,25,000/- per month and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards litigation expenses from the petitioner. Learned Magistrate, vide the order impugned dated 09.08.2023 had passed an ad interim order on the application filed under Section 20 r/w Section 23 of the PWDV Act and had

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:4427 CRL.RP No. 1759 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the petitioner and her two children from the date of the petition until further orders. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal No.25138 of 2024 before the Court of LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru under Section 29 of the PWDV Act. Along with the said appeal, an application in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 was filed, with a prayer to condone the delay of 219 days caused in filing the appeal. The Appellate Court, vide the order impugned dated 13.11.2024, rejected I.A.No.1 of 2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently also dismissed Criminal Appeal No.25138 of 2024. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

It is not in dispute that petitioner is the director of a company. Relationship between the parties is also not in dispute. Respondent is the wife of the petitioner and undisputedly the two children born to the couple are in the custody of the respondent - wife. The elder child is 7 years old and the younger child is said to be aged about 4 years.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:4427 CRL.RP No. 1759 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Considering the stature of the parties and also the fact that the respondent - wife has contended that she has no independent source of income, I am of the opinion that the amount of Rs.25,000/- per month granted by the Trial Court as interim maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.157 of 2023 cannot be said to be on the higher side. The Appellate Court has confirmed the said order, vide the order impugned. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the order impugned passed by the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.157 of 2023 which has been Confirmed in Crl.A.No.25138 of 2024.

¶38

It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that interlocutory application filed under Section 20 R/w Section 23 of the PWDV Act in Crl.Misc.No.157 of 2023 is pending for the last more than two years and he has made a prayer to this Court to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the said application on merits expeditiously.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent does not seriously oppose the said prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:4427 CRL.RP No. 1759 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Accordingly, I pass the following:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶46

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to expedite hearing on the application filed by the respondent under Section 20 R/w Section 23 of PWDV Act in Crl.Misc.No.157 of 2023 and dispose of the said application on merits as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶47

In view of the disposal of this revision petition, I.A.No.1

¶48

of 2025 and I.A.No.1 of 2026 do not survive for consideration. Accordingly they are dismissed .

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶51

NMS

Mr Karan Chandrashekar v. Mrs Divya Karan Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Karan Chandrashekar v. Mrs Divya Karan Chandrashekar

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

M/S Prakash Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S Rcs Supply Chain Management (Rcs)

Sri Ramachandra Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vijayalakshmi Subbaraju Shetty Vs Sri Harinath R Shetty

Mr Sujaya Salilan Vs the State by Kota Police Station

Sri. Sailesh Kumar Vs Smt. Nisha S Kumar

Anwar Hussain Vs Purushotham Shetty N