2. The application is supported with an affidavit sworn to
by the petitioner wherein she has stated that the
averments made in the petition be treated as part and
parcel of the affidavit. Further stated that, she was
married to the respondent No.1 and their marriage was
solemnized on 24.04.2016 as per Hindu Rites and
Customs at Nakshatra Convention Hall, Nanjangud
Road, Mysuru. Further stated that after the marriage, the
respondents have subjected her to Domestic Violence as
morefully stated in the petition. It is further stated that the
respondent No.1 is B.E. graduate and working at M.N.C
company and getting Salary of Rs.70,000/-p.m. though
he is capable of maintaining the petitioners. Further
stated that, the petitioner No. 1 has no means to maintain
herself and daughter and she has been in difficulties to
maintain her basic necessities. Upon these grounds, it is
prayed to allow the application.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the
interim maintenance as sought for?
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
5. The answer to the aforesaid point is Partly in the
Affirmative for following;
::REASONS::
6. Point No.1: In this case, it is an admitted fact that the
petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent No.1 and their
marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2016 as per the
Hindu rites and customs. It is also admitted fact that after
the marriage, the petitioner No.1 and respondents were
residing together in a matrimonial house. From this fact,
it could be said that there exist Domestic relationship
between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1.
Further, it is admitted that from the wedlock of the
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 the 2nd petitioner
born.
7. Before appreciating the facts lead by petitioner and
contention taken in the objection statement by the
respondent, it is necessary to have glance of the object
of the Domestic
ORDER
The I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioners under Section
23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
2005, is allowed in part.
The respondent is directed to pay maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioners towards
maintenance of petitioners from the date of the petition till
pending disposal of the petition."
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached
the Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.123/2024 which was also
dismissed by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated
23.11.2024 passed in Crl.R.P.No.123/2024 by the VII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, thereby confirming the order
passed by the Trial Court and holding as under:
"This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C. by the Revision Petitioners
challenging the order passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge &
JMFC, Mysuru in C.Mis. 56/2020 dated 31.3.2021 directing
the 1st revision Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance
of Rs.10,000/- pm to the Respondents from the date of
petition till pending disposal of the petition.
2. In the petition it is contended that the 1st revision
Petitioner and the 1st Respondent are the legally wedded
husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on
24.4.2016. Out of their wedlock, 2nd Respondent was
born. The revision Petitioners 2 and 3 are the in-laws and
revision Petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of the 1st
Respondent. After the marriage, revision Petitioners are
looking after the 1st Respondent with love and affection,
but the 1st Respondent has not respected the husband
and in-laws and she was always demanding the husband
to arrange separate rented house. Due to the harassment
and force of the 1st Respondent separate rented house
was arranged and husband and wife were started residing
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
in a rented house. Even then also the 1st Respondent was
not looking after the husband with love and affection. She
used to abuse the in-laws and harass them like anything.
3. Further it is contended that the 1st Respondent also filed
a petition before the Family Court in MC 217/2020 under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of
conjugal rights. Whereas the said petition was came to be
dismissed. However the Family Court has directed the
revision 1st Petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- to the 1st Respondent. As per the order passed
in MC 217/2020, the 1st revision Petitioner has paid the
entire arrears of maintenance and he has totally paid
Rs.3,86,000/-. Inspite of it, the 1st Respondent/wife has
field C.Mis.56/2020 under Section 9[b] and 37[20][c] of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005
before the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru.
Wherein the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- was
ordered in favour of wife and child and 1st revision
Petitioner is directed to pay the interim maintenance @
Rs.10,000/- to the Respondents pending disposal of the
petition.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, this present criminal
revision petition is filed on the following grounds:
1. The Respondents are already awarded
monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in MC
217/2020, inspite of it the Trial Court has erred
in directing the 1st revision Petitioner to pay the
interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm.
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
2. Now the Respondents are filing recovery
proceedings with respect to the maintenance
ordered in MC 217/2020 as well as with respect
to interim maintenance ordered in
C.Mis.56/2020 which is not maintainable.
3. The 1st Petitioner is regularly paying the
maintenance as per the order passed in MC
217/2020.
Hence, it is prayed to set aside the order of the Trial Court
dated 31.3.2021 passed in C.Mis.56/2020 directing the
1st revision Petitioner to pay the maintenance.
5. In response to the Court notice, the Respondents
appeared through their counsel and filed the objections
stating that 1st Petitioner is a B.E. graduate and he was
working in MNC Company and drawing handsome salary
of more than Rs.80,000/- pm. The interim maintenance
awarded in favour of the Respondents @ Rs.10,000/- is a
meagre amount. The 1st Respondent is not having any
source of income for her livelihood and she is residing in
her parents house along with her daughter and she is
entirely depending upon her parents for the livelihood to
herself and to her daughter. The interim maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- pm and also maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm
ordered in MC 217/2020 is not an exorbitant. The 1st
revision Petitioner is having financial capacity to pay the
interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm along with
maintenance Rs.10,000/- pm ordered in MC 217/2020.
Further it is contended that if the interim maintenance is
canceled the Respondents will be put to untold hardship
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
and injury as they are not having any source of income
except the maintenance amount payable by the 1st
revision Petitioner. Among other grounds, it is prayed to
dismiss the petition.
6. The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners has
produced the certified copy of order, petition, objection,
Judgment and Decree of MC 217/2020, order-sheet of
Ex.No.34/2022, Ex.No.84/2023 and Ex.No.3/2023 and
F.I.R. Hence the trial court record is not secured.
7. Heard the argument advanced by the learned Counsel
for both the parties. The learned Counsel for Respondents
in support of his submission has relied on the decision
reported in AIR 2017 SC 1640 in a case of Manish Jain
V/s. Akansha Jain. Perused the materials on record.
8. Now the points that would arise for consideration of this
Court are as follows:
1. Whether the revision Petitioners prove that
the order of Trial Court dated 31.3.2021 passed
on I.A. 1 under Section 23[1] of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, is
liable to be set aside?
2. What Order?
9. The findings of this Court to the aforesaid points are as
follows:
Point No.1: In the negative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
REASONS
10. Point No.1 : The learned Counsel for the revision
Petitioners vehemently argued that the 1st
Respondent/wife has filed a case in MC 217/2020 before
the III Additional Prl. Family Court at Mysuru seeking
restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act. Whereas after contesting the case, the said
case was came to be dismissed. However the Family
Court has directed the 1st revision Petitioner/husband to
pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife
and daughter. Accordingly the 1st revision Petitioner is
regularly paying the monthly maintenance @ Rs.10,000/-
till the date. Further he submitted that in the meanwhile,
the 1st Respondent also filed a case in C.Mis.56/2020
against the Petitioners under Section 9[b] and 37[20][c] of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
Wherein the Trial Court also directed the 1st revision
Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance to the wife and
child pending disposal of the petition. Further he
submitted that since the 1st revision Petitioner is already
paying the maintenance to the Respondents @
Rs.10,000/- pm as ordered by the Family Court in MC
217/2020, the interim maintenance ordered by the Trial
Court in C.Mis.56/2020 is not sustainable under law.
Further he submitted that the 1st revision Petitioner is
having responsibility to look after his parents i.e., revision
Petitioners 2 and 3 and he is drawing meager salary out
of which he is not able to pay the interim maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- pm in addiction to the maintenance ordered in
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
MC 217/2020. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the revision
petition and set aside the interim maintenance order dated
31.3.2021 passed by the Trial Court.
11. Per contra, the learned Counsel for Respondents
vehemently argued that in MC 217/2020, the
Respondents have not sought any maintenance, however
the Family Court considering the fact that wife and child
have no source of income for their livelihood, the Court
has suo-moto ordered the husband to pay the
maintenance to the wife and child @ Rs.10,000/- pm.
Since the husband and in-laws were subjected the 1st
Respondent for cruelty and also they thrown the wife and
child out of the matrimonial home, she was forced to file
the case in C.Mis.56/2020 under Domestic Violence Act.
In the said case, the Trial Court has directed the 1st
revision Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance pending
disposal of the case. Further he argued that the interim
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm and the monthly
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- as ordered in MC 217/2020,
the 1st revision Petitioner is liable to pay totally
Rs.20,000/- pm which is not exorbitant. Further he
submitted that 1st revision Petitioner is working as an
engineer in MNC Company and he is drawing handsome
salary. But the 1st revision Petitioner has intentionally
avoided and he did not produced his salary certificate
before the Trial Court. Hence, the Trial Court has taken an
adverse inference against the 1st revision Petitioner.
Further he submitted that the 1st revision Petitioner is
drawing handsome salary of more than Rs.80,000/- and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
he is capable of paying interim maintenance in addition to
the maintenance ordered in MC 217/2020. Further he
submitted that the 2nd Respondent i.e., his daughter is
aged about 8 years now and she is going to School. The
1st revision Petitioner is struggling to lead her life and to
build the future of the child without having any source of
income. The wife and daughter are entirely depending
upon the maintenance payable by the 1st revision
Petitioner. Further he submitted that since the interim
maintenance ordered by the Trial Court is not exorbitant,
there is no need to set aside the order of interim
maintenance which is also very much maintainable.
Further in support of his submission, the learned Counsel
for the Respondents has relied on the decision reported in
AIR 2017 SC 1640 wherein it is observed that:
"In present case, at the time of claiming
maintenance pendente lite when the
respondent-wife had no sufficient income
capable of supporting herself, High Court
was justified in ordering maintenance.
However, the maintenance amount of
Rs.60,000/- ordered by the High Court (in
addition to Rs.10,000/- paid under the
proceedings of D.V.Act) appears to be on
higher side and in interest of justice, same is
reduced to Rs.25,000/- per month. The
maintenance pendente lite of Rs.25,000/- is
to be paid to the respondent-wife by
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
appellant-husband (in addition to Rs.10,000/-
paid under the proceedings of D.V. Act)".
12. Keeping in mind the law laid down in the above said
decision, I have thoroughly gone through the materials on
record. No doubt the Family Court in MC 217/2020 at para
No.37, it is observed that:
"The Respondent/ husband is working at
MNC company, his father is retired AEE and
getting pension, his mother is a SDA in Aided
School and getting a good salary, they are not
depending on anybody. The Petitioner/ wife is
residing at her parental house since January
2020 along with child and she fought the
litigation for more than a year. She appears to
be entirely dependent on her parents and
other family members. Though she
contending that he gets Rs.70,000/- pm
towards his salary, but he denied and he
admits that he is getting Rs.39,000/-, take
home salary of Rs.15,000/-, he admits that he
is not furnished his salary certificates. When
he admits he is employee in private company
and non production of his salary certificates, it
presumes that he is getting handsome salary,
but what was the impediment to him to
produce his salary certificate to prove his
contention. Hence, non production of his
salary certificate, adverse inference can be
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
drawn against him. He himself admits that the
Petitioner is a housewife".
13. With the above said observations the Family Court
while dismissing the petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act has directed the Respondents to pay the
monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and child.
14. It is relevant to note that in MC 217/2020 order was
passed on 23.4.2021. Whereas in C.Mis.56/2020, the I
Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru was ordered the
interim maintenance on 31.3.2021. It shows that the
interim maintenance ordered by the Trial Court is passed
prior to the maintenance ordered in MC 217/2020. When
such being the case, the order of Trial Court directing the
1st Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- pm to the wife and child is not exorbitant and
sustainable under law because at the time of passing the
interim maintenance there was no any other order
directing the husband to pay the maintenance to the wife
and child.
15. Now the question that would arise is that the 1st
revision Petitioner is paying maintenance to the
Respondents as per the order passed in MC 217/2020.
Further the Respondents have denied that the 1st revision
Petitioner has paid the maintenance upto date as per the
order passed in MC 217/2020. Further on perusal of the
petition it shows that for recovery of maintenance the 1st
Respondent has filed recovery proceedings in
Ex.57/2021, Ex.34/2022 and Ex.3/2023 and Ex.84/23.
From this, it shows that the 1st revision Petitioner is a
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
defaulter in payment of maintenance. Only when the 1st
Respondent filed the recovery petition, then only he used
to pay the maintenance. Further it is to be taken into note
that only after issuing direction, he has produced the
salary certificates for the month of May and June 2024.
No doubt in the month of May 2024, gross salary was
Rs.50,147/- and home take salary was Rs.47,619/-. In the
month of June 2024, the 1st revision Petitioner has drawn
net pay of Rs.51,119/- and the gross salary was
Rs.53,647/-. No doubt the 1st revision Petitioner has not
disputed the fact that his father i.e., 2nd revision Petitioner
is a retired AEE and drawing pension and his mother 3rd
revision Petitioner is working as a SDA in an Aided School
and getting good salary. When such being the case, the
mother and father of 1st revision Petitioner are not
depending upon him. Under these circumstances,
considering the facts of the case that the 1st revision
Petitioner is drawing net pay of more than Rs.51,000/-
and also considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
relied by the learned Counsel for Respondents cited
supra, this Court is of the clear view that the interim
maintenance awarded by the Trial Court directing the 1st
revision Petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- pm as interim
maintenance is not exorbitant in addition to the
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm as ordered in MC
217/2020.
16. It is relevant to note that the 1st revision Petitioner has
not denied that his wife 1st Respondent is a house wife
and she has no source of income. Further the age of the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
2nd Respondent i.e., child of 1st revision Petitioner is more
than 8 years and she is going to School. When such being
the case, interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm in
addition to the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- pm
ordered in MC 217/2020 total Rs.20,000/- pm
maintenance is not exorbitant considering the present
cost of living and cost of education. Further it is to be
taken into note that as observed above as on the date of
order passed by the Trial Court directing to pay the interim
maintenance, MC 217/2020 was still pending for disposal.
Only after the order passed by the Trial Court in
C.Mis.56/2020, the order of maintenance came to be
passed in MC 217/2020. Hence, this Court has not find
any illegality in the order of the Trial Court dated
31.3.2021 passed on I.A.1 under Section 23[1] of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005,
directing the 1st revision Petitioner to pay the interim
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm to the Respondents. This
Court is of the considered view that the interim
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm is not exorbitant in
addition to the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- pm as
ordered in MC 217/2020. Consequently, this Court is of
the clear view that absolutely there is no justifiable ground
to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Trial Court.
Hence, this Court answer Point No. 1 in the negative.
17. Point No.2 : In view of the above reasons, this Court
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
The Criminal Revision Petition filed by
the Revision Petitioners under Section 397 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the order of the Trial
Court in C.Mis.56/2020 dated 31.3.2021
directing the 1st revision Petitioner to pay the
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm to the wife
and child from the date of petition till pending
disposal of the petition, is hereby confirmed.
Office to send the Trial Court records
along with copy of this order forthwith."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs.
Neha and Another reported in 2021 2 SCC 324, the impugned
orders deserve to be set aside, since the Family Court has already
awarded maintenance in M.C.No.217/2020 in favour of the
respondent against the petitioner.
6. The said submission made on behalf of the petitioner
cannot be accepted in as much as the said order passed by the
Family Court in M.C.No.217/2020 was on 23.04.2021 while the
impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court in
Crl.Misc.No.56/2020 under the D.V. Act was prior to the said order
passed by the Family Court. Consequently, merely because the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8378
Family Court passed subsequent order of maintenance on
23.04.2021, the same cannot be made the basis to interfere with
the earlier order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court under
the D.V. Act and as such, the said contention cannot be accepted.
7. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and
reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the Trial
Court and Revisional Court cannot be said to suffer from any
illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or
perverse warranting interference by this Court in the present
petition. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the
same is hereby dismissed.
8. The trial Court before whom Crl.Misc.No.56/2020 is
pending is directed to dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
MEG
