Karnataka High Court

Smt P Jayanthi Reddy vs Sri G Ramana Reddy on 3 July, 2025

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:24004
                                                          CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025


                      HC-KAR



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                  DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                                BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                               CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.526 OF 2025
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SMT P JAYANTHI REDDY
                           W/O G RAMANA REDDY
                           AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

                      2.   MASTER. GAJULA DHEVANISH REDDY
                           S/O G RAMANNA REDDY
                           AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS

                           2ND PETITIONER MINOR GUARDIAN
                           REP. BY 1ST PETITIONER

                           BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
                           D /O P ASHWATH REDDY
                           VADIGEPALLI VILLAGE AND POST
                           GORANTLA MANDAL
                           ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT
                           ANDHRA PRADESH -515 241
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA                                                   ...PETITIONERS
MURTHY RAJASHRI       (BY SRI ADINARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              AND:
KARNATAKA

                      SRI G RAMANA REDDY
                      S/O G. SURYANARAYANA REDDY,
                      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                      R/AT NO.427/1, 1ST CROSS,
                      DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
                      WHITEFIELD POST,
                      BENGALURU-560 066
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI KESHAVA MURTHY B, ADVOCATE)
                                   -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:24004
                                            CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 14.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VIII ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.47/2023,
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


                           ORAL ORDER

1. This revision petition is directed against the

judgment dated 14.03.2025 passed in Crl.A. No. 47/2023

by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, whereunder the order dated 13.04.2023

passed in Crl.Misc. No. 653/2022 by I Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District has been

partly confirmed with modification that petitioner No. 2

alone is entitled for interim monthly maintenance.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned counsel for respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are, that petitioner No.1

is the wife and petitioner No. 2 is the son of respondent.

Marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent was

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

solemnized on 14.02.2019 in the presence of well wishers

and elders of both the family. After marriage petitioner

No.1 and respondent started living in his house. They

begot one male child. Thereafter, respondent and his

family members started quarreling with petitioner No.1

for silly reasons and therefore, respondent decided to

reside separately and made separate house near

Marathahalli. After few months respondent started

quarrelling with petitioner No.1 demanding dowry and

drove her away along with baby on 30.06.2020.

Respondent and his family members started quarrelling

with petitioner No. 1 demanding to get registered land and

property belonging to her father towards additional dowry.

Therefore, petitioners started to reside in her parent's

house. Respondent never visited the house of parents of

petitioner No. 1 even to see their child. On these grounds

petitioners made an application under Section 12 of the

D.V. Act. Respondent No. 1 and other respondents in that

petition appeared and filed objections. Petitioners filed I.A.

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

No. 1 under Section 23(2) of the D.V. Act seeking interim

maintenance. Respondent has filed objections to the said

application. In the said application respondent has taken

up a contention that petitioner is living in adultery with a

person. After hearing both sides learned Magistrate has

passed order on I.A. No. 1 allowing it in part and directing

the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/-

per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to

petitioner No. 2 from the date of petition till disposal of the

main petition. Said order on I.A. No. 1 has been

challenged by the respondent before the Sessions Court in

Crl.A. No. 47/2023. The Sessions Court has partly allowed

the said appeal and operative portion of the said order

reads thus:

"The Appeal preferred by the appellant- husband U/S 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic from Violence Act (PWDV Act), 2005 is partly allowed.

The orders passed by the learned I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District on

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

I.A.No.1 dated 13-04-2023 in C.Mis.No.653/2022 is hereby confirmed with following modifications;

The respondent is directed to pay interim monthly maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner No.2 only from the date of orders passed by the learned court till disposal of the petition.

No orders as to cost."

4. Aggrieved by the said order petitioners have

filed the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend

that the appellate Court erred in setting aside the interim

maintenance granted to petitioner No. 1 wife only on the

ground of adultery. Said contention of respondent that

petitioner No.1 is living in adultery has to be established at

trial. Merely because respondent has taken up the

contention that petitioner No. 1 is living in adultery with

some person is not a ground for setting aside the interim

maintenance granted to petitioner No. 1 - wife which is

required to be established at trial. He further submits that

petitioners are ready for DNA test of petitioner No. 2. He

further contended that the appellate Court ought not to

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

have gone into the validity of the marriage between the

petitioner and the respondent while dealing with

maintenance matter and on that point he placed reliance

on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Sharanavva @ Kasturi Vs. Shivappa, Crl.P. No.

200044/2018 decided on 18.04.2024. He further

submits that the order passed by the trial Court is proper

and the appellate Court erred in modifying the said order

and setting aside the interim maintenance granted to

petitioner No.1. With this, he prayed to allow the revision

petition.

6. Learned counsel for respondent would contend

that the documents produced by him clearly show that

petitioner No. 1 is in contact with one person and she is

living adulterous life. He further submits that petitioner

No.1 had earlier married one person with whom she is now

residing. A lady who is leading adulterous life is not

entitled for maintenance. He further submitted that

petitioner No. 1 has married the said person by stating her

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

name as Priya and married the respondent by stating her

name as P. Jayanthi Reddy. He further submits that

respondent has filed a petition seeking dissolution of

marriage in M.C. No. 184/2022 against petitioner No. 1

and in that also he has taken up the ground that petitioner

No.1 is leading adulterous life with her boy friend. He

further contends that call detail records of petitioner No.1

indicate that she is in contact with the said person through

her phone even after her marriage with the respondent.

He submits that the order passed by the appellate Court is

proper and correct. He further submits that a lady living in

adultery is not entitled for maintenance. On that point he

placed reliance on the decision of a coordinate Bench of

this Court in the case of Smt. Shanthakumari Vs.

Thimmegowda, Crl.R.P. No. 56/2016 decided on

19.09.2023.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties

this Court has perused the impugned judgment and other

records.

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

8. Respondent has not disputed his marriage with

petitioner No. 1. Marriage of petitioner No. 1 with

respondent has taken place on 14.02.2019 at Bagepalli.

Respondent has filed a petition under Section 59 of the

Hindu Marriage Act against petitioner No. 1 seeking

restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent filed objection to

the petition and to I.A. No. 1 before the trial Court and has

taken up the contention that petitioner No. 1 is leading

adulterous life. Subsequently he has produced some

documents to support his contention. Respondent who has

taken up the said contention that petitioner No. 1 is

leading adulterous life is required to establish the same at

the trial. The Delhi High Court in the case of Ajay Kumar

Vs. Uma reported in 2024 SCC Online Del 148, Crl.M.C.

No. 2677/2011 and Crl.M.A. No. 17165/2021 decided

on 05.01.2024, in a similar matter, has observed thus:

"18. On the face of record, the respondent appears to have been left in lurch by the petitioner by disposing the properties and shifting to rented accommodation without making any provision for maintenance of respondent and children. Prima facie,

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

the acts and conduct of the respondent constitute 'domestic violence' as the respondent/complainant appears to have been deprived of the economic and financial resources to which she is entitled under law. Also disposal of the household effects to which respondent had an interest and was entitled to use by virtue of domestic relationship brings the case within the ambit of 'economic abuse' as provided in Section 3 of DV Act. It cannot be ignored that allegations of illicit relationship and relevant FIR under the provisions of Immoral Trafficking Act, as alleged by the petitioner was belatedly lodged, after the proceedings were initiated by the respondent under the DV Act. The respondent cannot be denied the benefit of interim maintenance under the DV Act merely on the basis of allegations of illicit relationship which are yet to be proved during the course of trial."

In the said case it is held that wife cannot be denied the

benefit of interim maintenance under the D.V. Act on the

basis of illicit relationship which is yet to be proved during

the course of trial.

9. The High Court of Bombay in the case of Aelish

Azad Vs. Suhana Azad and another reported 2024

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

SCC Online Bom 4059 decided on 17.12.2024 has

observed as under:

"13. The learned Advocate for respondent No.1 submitted that the credibility and authenticity of those text messages are under challenge. The petitioner would be required to prove this fact beyond doubt. The learned Advocate further submitted that on the basis of the mere allegations, the defence of adultery put forth by the petitioner cannot be accepted.

14. The petitioner has indeed stated in his written statement that respondent No.1 is living in adultery. Respondent No.1 has categorically denied this fact. It is her contention that in order to avoid the payment of interim maintenance, false allegations have been made against her. In my view, as far as this point is concerned, the same cannot be gone into at this stage. The petitioner would be required to prove this fact by leading cogent evidence. On the basis of the available material, prima facie opinion cannot be expressed in favour of the petitioner on this point. Therefore, the learned Judge was right in rejecting the contention of the petitioner on this point."

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

In the said case also husband had taken up the contention

that wife is living in adultery and the Court held that the

husband is required to prove the said fact by leading

cogent evidence and confirmed the order of granting

interim maintenance.

10. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

S.Hemanth Kumar Vs. D.R. Asha, Crl.P. No.

8705/2018 decided on 15.02.2019 has held as under:

"4. The petitioner-husband contended that the respondent-wife is living in adultery and as such she is not entitled for interim maintenance. The learned Trial Judge having regard to the point that the respondent is running condiment shop, next to LIC in the main road of Maddur and he has also having Provision Store at Shivara Village and possessing 2 and ½ acres of wet land and the fact that he is the only son to his parents and earning more than `50,000/- to `60,000/- as income per month, has allowed the petition in part and awarded maintenance at `4,000/- per month. Hence, on the ground of mere allegation of chastity of wife is to be suspected, maintenance cannot be denied. Learned Trial Judge has allowed the application in part as noted hereinabove. The said finding recorded by the

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

Trial Court does not call for interference, particularly, in the background of there being no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties and with regard to the respondent-wife living in Adultery is a matter, which will have to be examined after trial as against the statement made on oath by the petitioner-husband, which has been denied by the respondent-wife also on oath, which will have to be examined by the Trial Court after trial by taking into consideration entire evidence. Hence, at this stage wife cannot be denied maintenance, which has been sought for and awarded by the Court below. No good grounds made out to issue notice. Hence, Petition is hereby rejected."

In the said case it has been held that the contention of

husband that wife is living in adultery is to be examined by

the trial Court after trial by taking into consideration entire

evidence and affirmed grant of interim maintenance

awarded by the trial Court. Considering the above aspects

the respondent has to establish his contention that

petitioner No. 1 is living in adultery at trial leading

evidence in that regard.

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24004

HC-KAR

11. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel