Mithun Vs Smt. Smitha — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mithun Vs Smt. Smitha — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the appellate order dated 27.11.2020 confirming Rs.8,000/- per month maintenance to the wife (originally granted on 27.09.2017 in Crl.Misc.No.315/2016), should be admitted, given the petitioner's contention that he lost his job when the co-operative bank where he worked as Manager was taken over by the Government.

Court's answer

On hearing both sides, the Court held that where there is a changed circumstance in the financial capacity of the parties, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional magistrate with an application seeking modification of the impugned maintenance order.

Ratio / Principle

With that liberty, this Court did not find any good ground to admit the revision petition for further consideration.

Key takeaways

The revision petition is dismissed.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No. 632 of 2022, filed U/s.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.) by Mithun, husband, against confirmation of monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- payable to his wife Smt. Smitha pursuant to her petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Maintenance was granted on 27.09.2017 in Crl.Misc.No.315/2016 (JMFC, III Court, Davanagere), with no shared residence ordered, and the appeal was dismissed on 27.11.2020 in Crl.A.No.148/2017 (I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere). Petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner lost his job as Manager of a co-operative bank taken over by the Government and sought a reasonable deduction. Held (V Srishananda, J., 10.03.2026): if there is a changed circumstance in the financial capacity of the parties, the petitioner may approach the jurisdictional magistrate with an application seeking modification of the impugned order; with that liberty, the Court found no good ground to admit the revision petition, which was accordingly dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14286 CRL.RP No. 632 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 632 OF 2022

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MITHUN, S/O MOHANDAS SIRAWADKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NEHARU NAGAR, BYADAGI, HAVERI DISTRICT-

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

SMT. SMITHA, W/O MITHUN SIRAWADKA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT 98/3, RAITHARA BEEDI P. J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577 002.

MOHANDAS SIRWADKAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

SMT. SHAILA,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14286 CRL.RP No. 632 of 2022

HC-KAR

W/O MOHANDAS SIRWADKAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O NEHARU NAGAR, BYADAGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 110.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA B., ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O. DATED 07.03.2025, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2020 IN CRL.A.NO.148/2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ORDER DATED 27.09.2017 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.315/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, III COURT DAVANAGERE AND DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14286 CRL.RP No. 632 of 2022

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Rakesh.B.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Nagendra.B, learned counsel for

respondent No.1.

Husband who suffered an order of grant of maintenance for a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month in Crl.Misc.No.315/2016 which was confirmed in

Crl.A.No.148/2017 is the revision petitioner.

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

First respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner. On account of strained matrimonial relationship, first respondent and her children were thrown out of the matrimonial house resulting in filing the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14286 CRL.RP No. 632 of 2022

HC-KAR

Learned trial magistrate after due trial, taking

note of the financial conditions of both parties noted that there is no scope for the order granting the shared residence, allowed monthly maintenance in a sum of Rs.8,000/-.

Said order was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.148/2017. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record did not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of grant of maintenance. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

Being further aggrieved by the same, husband is before this Court in this revision petition.

Sri.Rakesh.B.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has lost his job as the co-operative bank in which the revision petitioner was working as a Manager has been taken over by the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14286 CRL.RP No. 632 of 2022

HC-KAR

Government and as such the order of maintenance cannot

be complied and sought for a reasonable deduction.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order.

Having heard the arguments of both sides, if there is a changed circumstance in the financial capacity of the parties, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional magistrate to pass the order with an application seeking modification of the impugned order.

With that liberty, this Court does not find any

good ground to admit the revision petition for further consideration.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

Revision petition is dismissed .

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

NS CT:TSM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27