Allowed¶43

Shri Sandeepa M N v. Pooja K O

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2026WP/1292/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Clubbing of penal provisions (Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) with summary maintenance provisions (Section 125 Cr.P.C.) in a single Criminal Miscellaneous application held patently erroneous and not maintainable; entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.549/2023 (I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur) quashed; interim maintenance order dated 25.06.2024 (Rs.3,000/- p.m. and Rs.2,000/- p.m.; Rs.10,000/- school fee) set aside; related filing recorded as Crl.Misc.Case No.548/2023; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution r/w Sec. 528 BNSS allowed; High Court of Karnataka; GM-FC; maintenance; quashing of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: the interim maintenance order dated 25.06.2024 was set aside and the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.549/2023 were quashed. ¶43

Shri Sandeepa M N Vs Pooja K O — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: the interim maintenance order dated 25.06.2024 was set aside and the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.549/2023 were quashed.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Miscellaneous proceedings (Crl.Misc.No.549/2023) filed by clubbing the penal provisions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with the summary maintenance provisions under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. inside a single application are maintainable. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The filing of the Criminal Miscellaneous number clubbing both the penal provisions (Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) and the summary maintenance proceedings (Section 125 Cr.P.C.) is patently erroneous; the Trial Court ought not to have numbered the same, the office having failed to take an objection at the time of numbering.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

As the filing of Criminal Miscellaneous No.549/2023 is not maintainable, the order of the Trial Court passed in the I.A. on 25.06.2024 is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

¶38

Key takeaways

The proceedings initiated by the wife and child in Criminal Miscellaneous No.549/2023 are erroneous; accordingly, the entire proceedings are quashed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (P Sree Sudha J, CAV order, 10.07.2026) allowed Writ Petition No. 1292 of 2025 (GM-FC), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution r/w Sec. 528 BNSS by the husband and his family against the wife and minor child. The Court held that the Criminal Miscellaneous proceedings (Crl.Misc.No.549/2023, I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur), in which the wife and child had clubbed the penal provisions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with the summary maintenance provisions under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. inside a single application, were patently erroneous and not maintainable, and that the Trial Court ought not to have numbered such an application. Consequently, the Trial Court's interim maintenance order dated 25.06.2024 in the I.A. under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. (granting Rs.3,000/- per month to the first petitioner, Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner and directing payment of Rs.10,000/- towards school fee) was held illegal, set aside, and the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.549/2023 were quashed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:35233 WP No. 1292 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 1292 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI SANDEEPA M. N., S/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGE 30 YEARS

¶9

SMT. GEETHA W/O NAGARAJAPPA B. AGE 50 YEARS

¶10

SHRI. NAGARAJAPPA M. B. S/O BASAPPA AGE 57 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SHRI. SANTOSHA S/O NAGARAJAPPA AGE 33 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE R/O NO. 11, MURUNALANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAMANAKERE KADURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577116

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY MR. SIDDIQ HUSSAIN KHAN SHAH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:35233 WP No. 1292 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

POOJA K O W/O SANDEEP MN, AGED 30 YEARS KAMANAKERE, HIRENALLUR, KADUR, CHIKAMAGALUR, KARNATAKA-577116.

¶21

VAIBHAV, MINOR REPRESENTED BY POOJA (MOTHER) S/O POOJA K O, KAMANAKERE, HIRENALLUR, KADUR, CHIKAMAGALUR, KARNATAKA-577 116.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K S GANESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 528 BNSS, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER, OR DIRECTIONS, ORDERING THE DISMISSAL OF THE ENTIRE MAIN PETITION IN CRL.MISC. NO.549/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR ON THE GROUND OF A PATENT AND INCURABLE ERROR IN PROCEDURESPECIALLY THE ILLEGAL CLUBBING OF PENAL PROVISIONS UNDER SECION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 WITH SUMMARY MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 125 OF CRPC INSIDE A SINGLE APPLICATION AND ETC.

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35233 WP No. 1292 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J. , MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶28

CAV ORDER

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed requesting the Court to set aside the order dated 25.06.2024 in I.A. filed under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C., later the prayer portion was modified requesting the Court to dismiss the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.549/2023 on the ground that the said application is filed by clubbing the penal provisions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with a summary maintenance provisions under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in a single application and also requested the Court to set aside/quash the order dated 25.06.2024.

¶30

Interim application is filed under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.15,000/- to the second petitioner and to pay school admission fee for second petitioner. Family Court considering the arguments from both sides granted Rs.3,000/-

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:35233 WP No. 1292 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

per month to the first petitioner and Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner towards interim maintenance and also directed the first respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- before the Court towards School Fee. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed.

¶35

A perusal of the record shows that wife and child

¶36

filed Crl.Misc.Case No.548/2023 claiming maintenance and also they filed an application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against respondent, his parents and brother as respondents No.1 to 4. The said filing of the Criminal Miscellaneous number clubbing both penal provisions and the summary proceedings of maintenance is patently erroneous. the Trial Court ought not to have numbered the same, but the office failed to took an objection at the time of numbering and the interim application is filed for maintenance, the Trial Court without considering the fact granted interim maintenance.

¶37

As the filing of the Criminal Miscellaneous

¶38

No.549/2023 is not maintainable, the order of the Trial Court passed in the I.A. on 25.06.2024 is illegal and is liable to be set aside and in fact the proceedings initiated by wife and child in

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:35233 WP No. 1292 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Criminal Miscellaneous No.549/2023 is erroneous and thus,

¶43

entire proceedings are quashed.

¶44

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶45