Bangalore District Court
K Shekar vs D Guramma on 27 January, 2026
KABC0A0006012023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH-75)
Dated: This the 27th day of January, 2026.
PRESENT:
Sri.PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT, B.Sc., LL.B.,(Spl.),
LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL. APPEAL No.25032/2023
APPELLANT/
RESPONDENT: K.Shekar,
S/o.Late.R.Krishnappa,
Major,
R/at.1 D5, I.T.I. Colony,
North Avenu, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru-560016.
(Rep.by Sri.Bhaktavachala, Advocate)
V/S
RESPONDENT/
PETITIONER: Smt.D.Guramma,
2
CRL.A. No.25032/2023
W/o.K.Shekar,
Major,
R/at.No.41, Sri Lakshmi
Venkateshwara Nilaya,
4th Cross, Karagadamma Layout,
Kithaganur Village,
Bengaluru-560049.
(Respt.-Absent)
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/respondent in Crl.Misc. No.273/2021 on the file of MMTC-1, Bengaluru, seeking setting aside of the impugned interim order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned MMTC-1, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
2. The appellant was the respondent and respondent herein was the petitioner before the trial court and hereinafter they are referred to as per the ranks assigned to them before the trial court. For brevity it is mentioned that appellant/respondent is the husband and respondent/petitioner herein is the wife. 3
CRL.A. No.25032/2023
3. The brief facts averred in the memorandum of appeal are that the petitioner who is no other than the wife of respondent had filed a petition before the MMTC under Section 12 of PWDV Act and further had filed an application under Section 23 (2) of PWDV Act seeking interim order of maintenance. The learned MMTC, Bengaluru has directed the appellant to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. to the petitioner and their children from the date of above said order till disposal of the petition. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned MMTC-1, the appellant has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-
1. That the trial court order suffers from gross procedural irregularity and the respondent has not established bonafide need for interim relief of financial assistance as such the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner.
2. The the trial court order is silent about the loss incurred by the respondent as a result of the Domestic Violence suffered.4
CRL.A. No.25032/2023
3. That the respondent has not established that she is an aggrieved person as per the PWDV Act, hence she is not eligible for any kind of relief under the PWDV Act.
4. That the trial court while partially allowing the interim relief petition, has not recorded the existence of prima facie case of maltreatment and existence of instances of domestic violence that are essential ingredient for granting interim relief. As the sine quo non of Domestic Violence is not established, the respondent is not entitled for interim relief.
5. That the IA-I seeking interim relief ought to have filed u/S 23(1) of the PWDV Act, whereas the IA-I has been filed u/S 23 (2) of PWDV Act, and the impugned order was also passed under the same action, thereby the order passed has been vitiated.
6. That the trial court overlooked the provision that the Section 23(2) of PWDV Act, deals strictly with conditions in which exparte order could be granted by the trial court. The said section does not deals with interim relief.
7. That as the trial court had passed the order of interim relief after hearing both the sides, the said order ought to be 5 CRL.A. No.25032/2023 construed to have been passed u/S 23 (1) of the PWDV Act.
8. That the trial court failed to follow the procedure of conducting enquiry according to Cr.P.C., as laid down in 28 (1) of the PWDV Act, while dealing with the proceedings under Section 23 of the PWDV Act. Hence due to gross procedural irregularity as laid down by the Act.
9. That the trial court failed to follow the procedure laid by Cr.P.C., for conducting trial of summons case by the trial court, while dealing with the application u/S 23 (1) of PWDV Act.
10. That the trial court order having come to be passed u/S 23 (1) of PWDV Act, the trial court had not recorded evidence but had passed the impugned order after hearing the parties. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, on all these grounds the appellant has prayed for setting aside the said impugned interim order dated 19.10.2022 passed in Crl.Misc. No.273/2021.
4. Pursuance to issuance of court notice, the respondent has not appeared and she has remained absent. 6
CRL.A. No.25032/2023
5. Heard arguments of both the appellant and the respondent and perused the entire materials placed on record.
6. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the impugned interim order requires to be set aside?
2. What order?
7. My answer on the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
8. POINT No.1: There is no dispute regarding the facts that respondent and petitioner are legally wedded husband and wife and they have two biological children; i.e., 7 CRL.A. No.25032/2023 elder son is an Advocate, practising in Bengaluru and the younger son is an Engineer working in a Multinational Company in Bengaluru and further the records show that the respondent who is the wife has filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act before the MMTC-1 and also had filed an application under Section 23 (2) of DV Act seeking certain interim reliefs including the Monetary relief of Rs.70,000/- per month towards the monthly maintenance.
9. The trial court after hearing the parties has 'directed the respondent to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards the livelihood and for medical expenses of the petitioner from the date of this order till disposal of the petition'.
10. The order under challenge before this court is purely an interim order and further the interim order passed by the learned MMTC-1 would go to show that the trial court has observed in the order, which is a brief order stating that 8 CRL.A. No.25032/2023 at the time of adjudication of the application, the petitioner has not established certain facts and documents have not been furnished and in order to decide the said reliefs, the evidence is required and a trial is required. By considering the fact that the respondent and petitioner are having children and the domestic relationship is not in dispute, by considering that it is necessary to grant some maintenance to the respondent for her welfare and well-being.
11. The order would clearly reflect that a direction has been passed. The said 'direction' has been challenged by the husband before this court.
12. The main ground on which the respondent has challenged the order is, the appellant and respondent marriage was an arranged marriage. The respondent has been driven out of his own house by the petitioner and her sons as he had refused to settle the house in the name of petitioner and theirs sons and the petitioner is enjoying the 9 CRL.A. No.25032/2023 comfort of the house that was built by the respondent. Now the respondent is living in a small house paying a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/-. Hence, the petitioner has not claimed for share household and she is the sole occupant of the hosue built by the respondent. The respondents ATM card of his salary account is also with the petitioner and the petitioner withdraws his salary and spent it on herself and for her relatives. Hence, the petitioner having sufficient income to lead her life.
13. The facts remains that the respondent is the husband and he is duty bound to pay the maintenance and more over, the trial court has not directed the respondent to pay certain specific amount monthly towards the maintenance. The court is not barred from issuing directions in the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. On perusal of the material available on record, it goes to show that petitioner filed application u/S 12 of 10 CRL.A. No.25032/2023 P.W.D.V. Act by seeking various reliefs. Petitioner was subjected to domestic violence. She is aged about 52 years and she is having many health issues and she is need of Rs.70,000/- per month towards her medical and household expenses and also to return the loans borrowed by her from others. In this regard, the petitioner has furnished the documents - copy of marriage invitation, photo of marriage, pendrive, photo, copy of divorce petition, copy of complaint, copy of NCR, copy of admission record, copy of complaint, post receipts, copy of complaint to Commissioner of police, copy of FIR, copy of order passed by 1 st ACJM, Rural, copy of salary slips, copy of EC, copy of UPI payments.
15. Perusal of materials available on record, it clearly goes to show that the respondent has also furnished his affidavit of assets and liabilities and admitted he is earning monthly salary of Rs.67,430/- and he is also having loan obtained from others. Perusal of records it clearly goes to 11 CRL.A. No.25032/2023 show that now the petitioner is need of moral and financial assistance from the respondent.
16. Perusal of the records, it clearly goes to show that petitioner is not working. Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v/s Neha has held that even a working woman is entitled for supportive maintenance. At this juncture, the records reveals that the petitioner is not earning sufficiently to support her life. It is bounden duty of the respondent to maintain his wife. Respondent being husband is duty bound to maintenance his wife. U/S 23 of D.V.Act itself provides discretionary power to Magistrate to grant exparte interim relief considering the over all facts and circumstances and exigency. The discretionary power has to be exercised with sound judicious manner and not casually.
17. Perused the documents produced by the appellant. These documents shows that the appellant based on these documents submitted that the trial court order may 12 CRL.A. No.25032/2023 be set aside. But, based on these documents trial court order cannot be set aside. Because, it is bounded duty of the husband to look his wife. I have perused the citation reported in Crl.Rev.P.1083/2023, Crl.M.A.27842/2023 and Crl.M.A.27843/2023.
18. Perusal of the papers and considering the nature of the case and the position of the petitioner and respondent, the order passed by the trial court is a proper and just and more over, the interim relief granted by the trial court is interim relief and considering the nature of the case and qualification of the both parties and status of both the parties in the society it is just and proper confirm the trial court order.
19. The trial court granted interim maintenance to pay Rs.20,000/- p.m., and more over u/S 23 of the DV Act itself provides that discretion power given to Magistrate to grant exparte interim relief and trial court considering over all facts 13 CRL.A. No.25032/2023 and circumstances of the case granted interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. to the petitioner as interim maintenance. Herein this case the appellant wants to set aside the said order. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, trial court is properly granted interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m., and I have perused the citations are clearly goes to show that the maintenance is given with the object is to prevent the vagrancy and destitution. It is leading life to the petitioner. Thereby I hold neither there are any merits in the case nor the appellant has made out any grounds for setting aside the order. The jurisdiction of the court is not limited when a petition is filed under DV Act before the Magistrate. The Magistrate is having ample power to adjudicate the application and grant necessary reliefs as deems fit in fact and circumstances of the case. The impugned order is one such order, interference of this court in the order passed by the learned Magistrate will not arise. Accordingly, I answer 14 CRL.A. No.25032/2023 point for consideration No.1 in Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.
Send back Trial Court Record (TCR) to the Trial Court along with copy of judgment.
No order as to costs.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of January, 2026].Digitally signed by
PRAKASH PRAKASH CHANNAPPA CHANNAPPA KURABETT Date: 2026.01.28 KURABETT 11:37:34 +0530 [PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT] LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
15 CRL.A. No.25032/2023