Disposed¶50

Mr a P Sridhar v. Shubha K S

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026CRL.RP/237/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; H.P. Sandesh, J.; CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025; decided 16-06-2026. Interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (S.23(2) r/w S.20); enhancement by appellate court in Crl.A.No.122/2024 (II Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Davangere) of Rs.5,000/- each for wife and daughter over prior Section 125 Cr.P.C. award (Crl.Misc.No.132/2014, Bhadravathi); cost of living, educational and medical expenses; cryptic trial Court order criticised; revision disposed of; quantum left open to trial Court; petition filed under S.438 r/w 442 BNSS.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the revision petitioner; the petition was disposed of without interfering with the Appellate Court's order of additional interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each, with quantum left open to the trial Court on merits.

Mr a P Sridhar Vs Shubha K S — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellate Court erred in granting additional maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondent and her daughter over and above the Rs.5,000/- each already awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C., despite the revision petitioner's contention that he has no sufficient means and his annual income per the Government Certificate is only Rs.15,000/-. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

The trial Court committed an error in passing a cryptic one-page order rejecting the interim maintenance claim, without discussing the cost of living or the educational expenses of the daughter.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The Appellate Court, having taken note of the cost of living, educational expenses and other medical expenses (the earlier Rs.5,000/- each not being sufficient), rightly granted additional maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondent and her daughter; no error is found in its order, and it causes no injustice to the revision petitioner.

¶45

Key takeaways

No grounds exist to admit the revision petition, and the order does not suffer from any illegality or incorrectness; the amount awarded is interim maintenance only.ratio¶49
The trial Court can decide the quantum of maintenance on merits after recording evidence of the revision petitioner's income and capacity to pay, and can vary or modify the interim amount, subject to the materials placed by the claimant.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. (filed as S.438 r/w 442 BNSS) by the husband against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2024 of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davangere in Crl.A.No.122/2024, which allowed the wife's appeal under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and granted additional interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to her and the daughter, over and above Rs.5,000/- each awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (total Rs.10,000/- per month). Held: the trial Court's one-page, cryptic rejection of the interim maintenance claim, without considering the cost of living and the daughter's educational expenses, was erroneous; the Appellate Court's reasoned order, taking into account cost of living, educational and medical expenses (the 2021 order of Rs.5,000/- each being insufficient), disclosed no error and caused no injustice to the revision petitioner. Revision petition disposed of; the amount awarded is interim maintenance only, and the trial Court may decide the quantum on merits on evidence of income and capacity to pay and may vary or modify it.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 237 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. A.P. SRIDHAR, S/O LATE DR. A. PUTTAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT DHANAVADI CROSS, NAGOLLI GRAMA, ARAKERE POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 245.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHUBHA K.S., Digitally signed W/O A.P. SRIDHAR, by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, Location: HIGH R/AT 1845/159, "GURUJI NILAYA", COURT OF 4^TH CROSS, VINAYAKA BADAVANE, KARNATAKA VIDYANAGARA, DAVANGERE - 577 005.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. MURALI S., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.12.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANGERE IN CRL.A.NO.122/2024 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

PAY RS.10,000/- PER MONTH FROM DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL THE DISPOSAL.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This matter is listed for admission.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

revision petitioner and on the earlier date of hearing, the respondent's counsel was absent and today also he is absent and not pursuing the matter diligently though filed the Vakalath.

¶26

The factual matrix of the case of revision petitioner is that the respondent herein has filed I.A.No.1/2017 under Section 23(2) read with Section 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which, she had claimed the interim maintenance, wherein it is contended that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and they have a daughter by name

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Niriksha A.S. The respondent No.1 i.e., petitioner herein started giving her mental and physical torture and neglected in not providing the maintenance.

¶31

The respondent/petitioner herein has appeared and filed statement of objections contending that already in Crl.Misc.No.132/2014, the Hon'ble I Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi, has awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioner and her daughter in a proceedings initiated under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court having considered the claim of the respondent and also the objections of the present petitioner in paragraph No.10, comes to the conclusion that already the respondent and her daughter are getting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each and such being the case, they are not entitled for further maintenance.

¶32

The said order was challenged before the Appellate Court by the respondent herein by fling an

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

appeal and the Appellate Court in detail taking note of the reasoning given by the trial Court in Crl.A.No.122/2024, comes to the conclusion that considering the cost of living and also of the fact that the daughter is under the custody of the respondent and pursuing her education, trial Court has committed an error in coming to such a conclusion and awarded additional amount of Rs.5,000/- each for the petitioner as well as to the daughter. The same is challenged before this Court.

¶37

The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the order passed by the Appellate Court is erroneous and it failed to take note of the amount already awarded, in total, an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the wife as well as the daughter. The learned counsel also contended that Sessions Court has not at all considered that the petitioner is not having sufficient means to earn and his annual income as per the Government Certificate is only Rs.15,000/- and in spite of it, the Appellate Court committed an error in allowing

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the appeal and granting an additional maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each, apart from the order passed by the trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., proceedings and hence, the impugned order requires interference.

¶41

Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also considering the reasoning assigned by the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court has committed an error in passing a cryptic order in one page, particularly in paragraph No.10, already maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each has been granted to the petitioner and her daughter. When such being the case and considering the circumstances of the case, the trial Court has not even discussed anything about the cost of living and also the educational expenses of the daughter. However, the Appellate Court while considering the appeal in detail, discussed the same and particularly in paragraph No.34, it has noted that the Bhadravathi Court had passed the order in 2021, awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioner and the daughter. The same was not

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

sufficient. Taking note of the fact of cost of living, including educational and medical expenses, the Appellate Court has increased the maintenance amount and hence, in paragraph Nos.35, 36 and 37, keeping in view the order already passed by the trial Court in awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/-, the Appellate Court has granted an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the petitioner and to her daughter, until disposal of the case, and the same would not cause any injustice to the revision petitioner.

¶45

The Appellate Court while giving additional amount of Rs.5,000/- has taken note of the cost of living, educational expenses and other medical expenses and the same was not taken note of by the trial Court while rejecting the claim made by the respondent. When such a reasoned order has been passed by the Appellate Court by considering the cost of living, as well as educational expenses of the daughter, I do not find any error on the part of the Appellate Court in granting an additional

¶46

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29308 CRL.RP No. 237 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

amount of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondent and her daughter.

¶49

Hence, in this case, I do not find any grounds to admit this revision petition and order of the trial Court does not suffer from any legality and correctness and the amount is also awarded as interim maintenance and the trial Court can decide the quantum of compensation on merits after recording the evidence with regard to the income of the revision petitioner and the trial Court can even vary or modify the same, subject to the materials placed by the respondent/claimant before the trial Court and also considering the evidence of the present revision petitioner with regard to capacity to make the payment.

¶50

With the above observation, the revision petition is disposed of .

¶51

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶52

PSJ / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Mr a P Sridhar v. Shubha K S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr a P Sridhar v. Shubha K S

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

Mr Pradeep Kumar K S Vs Mr Mohan Kumar S

Sri M Dinesh Shanbhag Vs Sri M S Shivaramu

Smt. Shamala Shetty, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. H R Gowramma Vs Sri. H M Rudrakumar

Amogha Karunadu Poornaseva Souharda Credit Co. Operative Ltd., Vs M/S Woodtech Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Siddalingappa Vs Sri Revana Siddaiah