Dismissed¶39

Abdul Azeez P v. Afreen Kousar L

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2026CRL.RP/476/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, CRL.RP No. 476 of 2025, decided 22.01.2026 by Justice S Vishwajith Shetty; criminal revision under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C (S.438 r/w 442 BNSS) against interim maintenance orders under PWDV Act 2005 (appeal under S.29 PWDV Act); interim maintenance Rs.10,000/- each per month to wife and minor son upheld (Trial Court had awarded Rs.15,000/- each; Rs.40,000/- sought); husband's salary Rs.62,000/- per month; cost of living in Bangalore; revision dismissed; Crl.Misc.No.148/2023; Crl.A.No.584/2024.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the interim maintenance directions of the courts below (Rs.10,000/- each per month to the respondents) stand, and pending IAs in the revision petition are also dismissed. ¶39

Abdul Azeez P Vs Afreen Kousar L — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the interim maintenance directions of the courts below (Rs.10,000/- each per month to the respondents) stand, and pending IAs in the revision petition are also dismissed.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each per month awarded by the appellate court to the wife and son is excessive, having regard to the petitioner's monthly income of Rs.62,000/-, and whether the revisional court should interfere with the orders of the courts below.

¶38

Court's answer

Since respondent no.1 and her son have taken shelter in her parents' house and she has no other source of income, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and son.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Considering the cost of living in Bangalore and the petitioner's monthly income, the interim monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each per month awarded by the Appellate Court is not on the higher side.

¶38

Key takeaways

There are no good grounds to interfere with the impugned orders of the courts below and the revision petition lacks merit.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. (BNSS Ss.438 r/w 442 also invoked in the caption) against the order dated 20.01.2025 in Crl.A.No.584/2024 (LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) and the order dated 11.03.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.148/2023 (Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - VI, Bengaluru) fixing interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The husband, an engineer drawing Rs.62,000/- per month, contended the awards were unjustified as he had other commitments and had provided premises on lease to the respondents. The Court held that, the wife having no independent income and the parties residing separately with the wife and minor son sheltered at her parents' house, it was the petitioner's bounden duty to maintain them; considering the cost of living in Bangalore and his income, interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each per month to the wife and son was not on the higher side. Finding no grounds to interfere, the Court dismissed the revision petition and the pending IAs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3653 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 476 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ABDUL AZEEZ P S/O MOHAMMED FAYAZ AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.129 3RD FLOOR, 7TH CROSS KUPPUSWAMY LAYOUT NAGASWARA BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ABHISHEK N.V, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AFREEN KOUSAR L W/O ABDUL AZEEZ P D/O LIKAYATH ALI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING A/T NO.12 4TH CROSS, NEAR SALAM HOTEL, MANGAMANAPALYA BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶13

MASTER MOHAMMED AARIZ S/O ABDUL AZEEZ P AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12 4TH CROSS, NEARSALAM HOTEL MANGALAMANAPALYA BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 068 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AFREEN KOUSAR

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI KALEEMULLA SHRIEF, ADV., FOR SRI HUSSAIN MUEEN FAROOQ, ADV.)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:3653 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2025 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.584/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH57) AT ANNEXURE-A DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY RS.10,000/- EACH PER MONTH TO THE RESPONDENTS I.E., TS.20,000/- PER MONTH FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DISPOSAL.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner - husband is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.584 of 2024 by the Court of LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and the order dated 11.03.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.148 of 2023 by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - VI, Bengaluru.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

Petitioner is the husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent no.2. Respondents herein had filed Crl.Misc.No.148 of 2023 before the jurisdictional Court of Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - VI, Bengaluru under

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3653 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the provisions of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (For short, 'PWDV Act') and in the said proceedings, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 were filed with a prayer to grant interim monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month and also to direct the petitioner to return the personal belongings to the respondents. The said applications were opposed by the petitioner and the Trial Court, vide the order impugned had partly allowed the applications and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of ₹Rs.15,000/- each to the respondents from the date of petition till the disposal of this petition. Aggrieved by order passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner had filed an appeal as provided under Section 29 of the PWDV Act before the Court of LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.584/2024 which has been allowed in part by order dated 20.01.2025 and the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each per month to the respondents in modification of the order passed by the Trial Court. Assailing the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3653 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated

¶32

the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner is drawing only a monthly salary of Rs.62,000/- per month and he has got several other commitments. Petitioner has provided a premises on lease to the respondents. The Courts below are therefore not justified in directing him to pay maintenance as per the orders impugned. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶33

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent no.1 has no other source of income. Petitioner has deserted his wife and son and they have now taken shelter in their parents' house. Having regard to the cost of living, the maintenance amount awarded cannot be said to be on higher side. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶34

Petitioner is a qualified engineer, who is working in a private company and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present salary of the petitioner is Rs.62,000/per month. Respondents herein are the wife and son of the petitioner. Relationship between the petitioner and his wife is strained and material on record would go to show that they are

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:3653 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

now residing separately. It is not in dispute that respondent no.1 along with her son has now taken shelter in her parents' house. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and son. Respondent no.1 who has no other source of income is also required to take care of her son, who is now aged about 5 years. Taking into consideration the income of the petitioner and also the social status of the parties the appellate Court has modified the order of interim maintenance passed by the Trial Court and has now directed the petitioner to pay interim monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each per month to the respondents 1 and 2. Considering the cost of living in Bangalore and also taking into consideration the monthly income of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the interim monthly maintenance awarded by the Appellate Court is on the higher side. Therefore, I do not find any good grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Courts below. I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

¶39