SMT. SAVITHA vs SRI RAMESH

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57847
CRL.P No. 3432 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201522024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3432 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SMT. SAVITHA
W/O RAMESH
D/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT GUDDADAHATTI
SIRA TOWN-572 137
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI RAMESH
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT SUNNAWADI
PURUVARNA HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK-572 132
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2024 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
AT TUMAKURU PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.6/2023, WHICH IS FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED










Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57847
CRL.P No. 3432 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201522024



25.10.2022, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT SIRA IN CRL.MISC.NO.238/2018.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated
22.02.2024 passed in Crl.R.P.No.6/2023 by the VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru (for
short, 'the First Appellate Court'), whereby the First
Appellate Court allowed the revision petition filed by the
respondent and set aside the order dated 25.10.2022
passed in Crl.Misc.No.238/2018 by the Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sira (for short, 'the Trial Court').
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 20.09.2015 at Sri Manju Krupa Kalyana
Mantapa, Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala. After the marriage,
their relationship was cordial for a few years. Thereafter,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57847
CRL.P No. 3432 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201522024



differences arose between them, and it is alleged that the
respondent subjected the petitioner to physical and mental
harassment, compelling her to leave the matrimonial
home and reside at her parental house.
3. Subsequently, the respondent-husband filed
M.C. No.68/2017 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The said
petition was allowed on 24.04.2018. However, the
petitioner did not rejoin the matrimonial home. In the
meantime, the petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.238/2018 before
the Trial Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the
respondent. The Trial Court partly allowed the petition and
directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/-
per month to the petitioner from the date of the petition.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the
Trial Court, the respondent preferred Crl. R.P. No.6/2023
before the First Appellate Court. Upon re-appreciation of

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57847
CRL.P No. 3432 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201522024



the oral and documentary evidence, the First Appellate
Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order
of the Trial Court. Challenging the said order, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Apart from raising several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the
First Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the
Trial Court solely on the ground that the petition filed by
the respondent in M.C. No.68/2017 under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal
rights, had been allowed. According to learned counsel,
the said finding is factually incorrect, as the respondent
had subjected the petitioner to physical and mental
harassment during their matrimonial life, compelling her to
leave the matrimonial home. He further submitted that the
petitioner is presently residing at her parental home and is

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57847
CRL.P No. 3432 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201522024



entirely dependent on her parents for her day-to-day
expenses. In contrast, the respondent is running a
wholesale and retail chicken shop and earning a
substantial income therefrom, apart from owning
agricultural properties. In such circumstances, learned
counsel contended that the First Appellate Court erred in
passing the impugned order. Accordingly, he sought to
allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
opposed the prayer of the petitioner, contending that the
First Appellate Court, upon meticulous examination of the
entire evidence on record, passed a reasoned order setting
aside the order of the Trial Court. He submitted that,
despite the respondent making sincere efforts to bring the
petitioner back to the matrimonial home, she failed to join
him. Having been left with no other option, the respondent
filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Though the
said petition was allowed, the petitioner failed to rejoin the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57847
CRL.P No. 3432 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201522024



matrimonial home even thereafter. He further submitted
that the respondent is still ready and willing to take the
petitioner back to the matrimonial home, but she has
chosen not to join him for reasons best known to her. In
such circumstances, learned counsel contended that the
First Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the
maintenance order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly,
he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the order passed by the First
Appellate Court and Trial Court and also the documents
placed before this Court.
9. As could be gathered from the records, the marital
relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that, after their marriage, they
resided together for a few years, and thereafter, owing to
marital disputes, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and
started residing at her parental house. No doubt, the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57847
CRL.P No. 3432 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201522024



respondent filed M.C.No.68/2017 seeking restitution of conjugal
rights, and the same came to be allowed. However, despite the
said order, the petitioner did not rejoin the matrimonial home.
The specific reason assigned by the petitioner for not joining
the respondent is that she was subjected to unbearable
harassment. According to her, during the period she resided
with the respondent after their marriage, he subjected her to
physical and mental harassment. It is also relevant to note that
the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights was filed prior
to the institution of Crl.Misc.No.238/2018.
10. Be that as it may, it is evident that the petitioner is
presently residing at her parental home, is not employed, and
is wholly dependent on her parents for her day-to-day
expenses. The evidence of the petitioner and PW.2 before the
Trial Court indicates that the respondent-husband earns a
substantial income from his chicken centre and also owns
agricultural property. While allowing the revision petition, the
First Appellate Court observed that the petitioner had refused
to reside with the respondent and, therefore, was not entitled
to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. However,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57847
CRL.P No. 3432 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201522024



on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and
the evidence adduced by the petitioner before the Trial Court, it
is evident that her inability to rejoin the matrimonial home was
attributed to the harassment allegedly meted out to her by the
respondent. In such circumstances, her failure to rejoin the
matrimonial home cannot, by itself, be construed as a wilful
refusal to reside with the respondent, particularly when she has
attributed her separation to unbearable harassment. The
respondent, being her husband, is under an obligation to
maintain her, subject to the requirements of law.
RINA
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENA VS DINESH KUMAR MAHTO @
DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER 2025
reported in
INSC 55 , held in paragraph No.29 as under:

29. Thus, the preponderance of judicial
thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife’s
right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
and the mere passing of a decree for restitution of
conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-
compliance therewith by the wife would not, by
itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57847
CRL.P No. 3432 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201522024



under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It would depend on
the facts of the individual case and it would have
to be decided, on the strength of the material and
evidence available, whether the wife still had valid
and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her
husband, despite such a decree. There can be no
hard and fast rule in this regard and it must
invariably depend on the (2018) 17 SCC 737
distinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in
each particular case. In any event, a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband
coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife
would not be determinative straightaway either of
her right to maintenance or the applicability of the
disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
12. Further, the respondent has not placed any reliable
documentary evidence to establish that the petitioner is
employed and earning an income. Except for his oral assertion
that she is working in an office, no material has been produced
in support of the said contention. These aspects were duly
considered by the Trial Court, which awarded maintenance of
Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner. The First Appellate
Court, however, set aside the said order without assigning
sufficient and cogent reasons to warrant such interference. In

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57847
CRL.P No. 3432 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201522024



the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by
the First Appellate Court calls for interference. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed .
ii. The order dated 22.02.2024 passed in
Crl.R.P.No.6/2023 by the VI Additional District
and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru is hereby
set aside. Consequently, the order dated
25.10.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.238/2018
by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira is
hereby affirmed.

SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE



CR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4