Dismissed

Roopesh Kumar G K v. Smt Bhagya

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2026CRL.RP/31/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged concurrent orders granting his wife interim maintenance and residential rights in a domestic violence proceeding, claiming they were only in a live-in relationship and he earned Rs.7,000 monthly. His asset/income statements went uncontroverted. Revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; orders granting maintenance and residential relief left undisturbed.

Roopesh Kumar G K Vs Smt Bhagya — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4011 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 31 OF 2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ROOPESH KUMAR G K, S/O KRISHNEGOWDA G N, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHREYAS NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR, NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT BHAGYA, D/O LATE KULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HANIYAMBADI, 6TH CROSS, KAVERI NAGAR, MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2021 PASSED BY THE LD JMFC MANDYA ON I.A NO.1 AND 2 IN CRL.MISC NO.529/2021 AND ALLOWED IN PART IN CRL.A 147/2025 BY THE LD IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA DATED 21.11.2025.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:4011 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner/husband is before this Court in this Criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.06.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Misc No. 529/2021 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya and the order dated 21.11.2025 passed on Crl.A.No.147/2025 by the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya.

¶23

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Respondent herein has initiated proceedings

¶25

against the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred as 'the Act') and in the said proceedings, applications were filed under Section 23 of the Act, seeking the relief of

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4011 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

interim maintenance and residential accommodation. The said applications were opposed by the petitioner by filing objections. The Trial Court, vide the order impugned dated 16.06.2023 has allowed the applications and has granted liberty to the petitioner to reside in her matrimonial house along with the petitioner herein. The petitioner was also directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.147/2025 before the Appellate Court as provided under Section 29 of the Act and the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2025. It is under these circumstances, petitioner/husband is this court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner is a married man having wife and children. He was only in a live-in relationship with the respondent. The petitioner is earning only Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:4011 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Thousand only) per month and he has produced his salary certificate before the Trial Court. Therefore the Courts below were not justified in directing him to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month as maintenance to the respondent.

¶34

According to the respondent, her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 20.11.2011 and from the wedlock they have two children namely Dhanvithgowda and Koushikgowda. Petitioner who has disputed his marriage with the respondent, however has admitted before this Court that he was in a live-in relationship with the respondent and from the said relationship two children were born to them. Respondent in her application filed seeking monetary and residential relief has stated that petitioner, who is her husband, is having one house situated at Gunanayakanahalli Village and also having another house at Kuvempunagar, Mandya City in a site measuring 60x40 sqft. She has also further stated that the petitioner owns 15 acres of agricultural land and he is the

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4011 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

owner of the car bearing registration No.KA-01-MG-1490.

¶38

She has further stated that he also owns a two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-11-EG-5390 and he also owns a tractor which is used for his agricultural purposes. She has stated that monthly income of the petitioner is not less than Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the aforesaid sources.

¶39

6. Though petitioner has filed objections to the applications filed by respondent, he has not disputed the aforesaid statement made by the respondent in her application. On the other hand, he has produced a certificate from a private firm stating that he is employed

¶40

in the said firm and earning only Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only). Thereby the statement made by the respondent with regard to the assets of the petitioner and his income remained uncontroverted. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter have rightly granted monthly maintenance of Rs20,000/- to the respondent, who also is required to take care of her two sons born to

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:4011 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the

¶45

petition is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶47

KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Roopesh Kumar G K v. Smt Bhagya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopesh Kumar G K v. Smt Bhagya

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

Mr. Sundaram Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Mohammed Zahoor Vs Smt Safiya Banu

C.Puttaveeregowda Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri Shankar Vs Sri Joseph

Sri. Panathale R. Naveena Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P Ramesh Babu Vs State of Karnataka