Sri. Santhosh vs Smt. Sowjanya W/O Santhosh on 15 April, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                             -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC:20415
                                                       CRL.P No. 1570 of 2026


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1570 OF 2026
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI SANTHOSH
                   S/O DODDAVEERE GOWDA
                   AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
                   PRESENT ADDRESS;
                   RESIDENT AT NO.5 11TH CROSS
                   VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM
                   BENGALURU - 560 003.

                   AND ALSO R/AT
                   NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE AND POST
                   KASABA HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK
                   RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
                                                                ...PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI      (BY SRI B.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
J KARISHETTY
Location: High     AND:
Court of
Karnataka
                   1.    SMT. SOWJANYA
                         W/O SANTHOSH
                         AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
                         D/O SHIVAMADHAIH
                         RESIDING AT GANALU VILLAGE
                         AND POST, KANAKAPURA KASABA
                         BENGALURU SOUTH - 562 117
                         RAMANAGARA - 562 117.
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC:20415
                                         CRL.P No. 1570 of 2026


HC-KAR




2.   MASTER VIKYATH SANTHOSH
     S/O SANTHOSH
     AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS
     R/AT GANALU VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA
     RAMANAGARA - 562 117

     REPRESENTED BY ITS NATURAL GUARDIAN
     MOTHER SMT. SOWJANYA.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.12.2025
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.402/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                          ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - husband is before this Court calling in

question an order dated 16.12.2025, passed by the II

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, Ramanagara

District, in Crl.Misc.No.402/2024, whereby, the application filed

by the wife seeking interim maintenance under Section 23(2) of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, comes to

be partly allowed by granting interim maintenance at

Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the petition, till the

disposal of Crl.Misc.No.402/2024.

NC: 2026:KHC:20415

HC-KAR

2. Heard Sri B. Manjunath, learned counsel for petitioner.

Notice to respondent is not issued.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is the husband, respondent No.1, the wife

and respondent No.2, the son, born from the wedlock of the

petitioner and respondent No.1. Owing to certain marital

discord, respondent No.1 - wife files petition under the

provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). The subject petition is not with

regard to the merit of the matter.

4. In the said petition, respondent No.1 - wife files an

application seeking interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m.

The concerned Court after considering the claim of the wife and

the objections filed by the husband, grants Rs.5,000/- as

interim maintenance per month to be paid by the husband.

The petitioner - husband is before this Court calling in question

this order of granting interim maintenance on a specious plea

that he has no avocation to maintain himself, let alone

maintaining the wife and the child.

NC: 2026:KHC:20415

HC-KAR

5. The submission of the petitioner is noted only to be

rejected, on the score that the Apex Court in the case of ANJU

GARG AND ANOTHER v. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG reported in

2022 SCC OnLine 1314, has held has follows:

"10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able- bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her

NC: 2026:KHC:20415

HC-KAR

version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no. 2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife.

12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order.

13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as

NC: 2026:KHC:20415

HC-KAR

his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son.

14. It is accordingly directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the Family Court. The entire amount of arrears shall be deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within eight weeks from today, after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by him."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment holds that

if the husband has no job to take care of the wife, it is his

responsibility to get a job and then take care of the wife and

child and not leave them in the lurch.

6. Insofar as the quantum of interim maintenance is

concerned, the concerned Court has granted Rs.5,000/- p.m.,

to be paid by the husband to the wife, which amount is not

NC: 2026:KHC:20415

HC-KAR

onerous for the petitioner to challenge the quantum of interim

maintenance invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section