SMT MANJULA vs SRI BABU
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61230
CRL.P No. 2111 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119592024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2111 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJULA
W/O BABU
D/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT ARAHU VILLAGE
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 427.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. BABU
S/O VIJENDRAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT BALLENAHALLI VILLAGE
K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. KENCHEGOWDA B M.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2023 PASSED BY THE
HONBLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61230
CRL.P No. 2111 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119592024
(SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) IN CRL.RP.NO.5044/2023 AND
UPHELD THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2023 PASSED BY THE
HONBLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA IN
CRL.MISC.NO.52/2022 IN AWARDING RS.3,000/- P.M.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner herein filed Crl.Misc.No.52/2022 against
her husband before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’),
seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. Along with the petition, she also filed an
application seeking interim maintenance under Section 125(1)
of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court by its order dated 09.06.2023 partly
allowed the said application and directed the respondent-
husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month
to the petitioner until disposal of the main petition.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61230
CRL.P No. 2111 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119592024
2. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-husband
preferred Crl.R.P.No.5044/2023 before the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, sitting at Srirangapatna
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Sessions Judge'). The
learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition by setting
aside the interim order passed by the Trial Court and directed
the Trial Court to dispose of the main petition on merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made by the learned Sessions
Judge.
3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, the petitioner-wife has preferred the present
petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The primary contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, ever since the date of her marriage with the
respondent, i.e., 09.10.2008, the petitioner was subjected to
both physical and mental harassment by the respondent. Due
to such intolerable harassment, she was left with no other
option but to leave the matrimonial home and reside at her
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61230
CRL.P No. 2111 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119592024
parental house. Since she was unable to maintain herself, she
filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking
maintenance. It is further contended that, though the Trial
Court partly allowed the application for interim maintenance
and directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of
Rs.3,000/- per month until disposal of the main petition, the
learned Sessions Judge set aside the said order on the ground
that the respondent and his family members had made efforts
to bring the petitioner back to the matrimonial home and lead a
happy married life. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner
had also made several attempts to rejoin the matrimonial home
however, owing to the intolerable harassment meted out to
her, she was unable to continue living with the respondent.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is
unsustainable and calls for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, learned counsel prays to allow the petition.
6. There is no representation for the respondent.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon
perusal of the impugned order, the order passed by the Trial
Court and the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61230
CRL.P No. 2111 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119592024
of Cr.P.C., it is evident that the marital relationship between
the petitioner and the respondent became strained after their
marriage. The petitioner has specifically alleged that the
respondent and his family members subjected her to physical
and mental harassment and even failed to provide her with the
basic necessities, including food, required for her sustenance in
the matrimonial home. In such circumstances, having been left
with no other option, the petitioner left the matrimonial home
and started residing at her parental house.
8. This aspect of the matter has been duly appreciated by
the Trial Court while granting interim maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- per month. However, while setting aside the said
order, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the
respondent and his family members had made all efforts to
bring the petitioner back to the matrimonial home, but she
failed to rejoin them. The allegations made by the petitioner
clearly indicate that she was unable to continue her marital life
with the respondent owing to the intolerable harassment
allegedly meted out to her. Therefore, merely because the
petitioner did not rejoin the matrimonial home despite the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61230
CRL.P No. 2111 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119592024
efforts said to have been made by the respondent, the same
cannot be a ground to deny her interim maintenance,
particularly when she has assigned reasons for living
separately.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to an economically
weaker family and is unable to maintain herself. In such
circumstances, the respondent, being her husband, is duty-
bound to maintain her. The Trial Court, having taken into
consideration the financial status of the parties, has awarded a
meagre sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards her interim
maintenance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
learned Sessions Judge ought not to have interfered with the
said order.
RINA KUMARI @
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
RINA DEVI @ REENA VS DINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH
KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER 2025 INSC 55
reported in ,
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
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61230
CRL.P No. 2111 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119592024
conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-
compliance therewith by the wife would not, by
itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification
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.
11. In view of the above observation, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The criminal petition is allowed .
ii. The order dated 22.12.2023 passed in
Crl.R.P.No.5044/2023 by the III Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at
Srirangapatna), is hereby set aside.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61230
CRL.P No. 2111 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119592024
iii. The order dated 09.06.2023 passed in
Crl.Mis.No.52/2022 by the Addl. Civil Judge and
JMFC, Srirangapatna is hereby confirmed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
GPG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14