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 -3- NC: 2025:KHC:24004 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 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. -4- NC: 2025:KHC:24004 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:24004 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:24004 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:24004 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 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.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:24004 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 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, -9- NC: 2025:KHC:24004 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 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 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 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 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 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 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 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 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent in the case of Smt. Shanthakumari (supra) has been rendered based on the evidence led by the parties wherein the trial Court has held that the husband has proved that the wife is living adulterous life and therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. In the case on hand parties are yet to lead evidence and what is granted is interim maintenance. Considering all these aspects the judgment passed by the appellate Court is erroneous and it requires to be set aside and order passed by the trial Court requires to be affirmed. If the respondent - husband establishes that petitioner No. 1 is living in adultery and Court comes to the opinion that she is not entitled for maintenance as respondent has established that she is living in adultery, at that time respondent is at liberty to recover the amount of interim maintenance given by him to petitioner No.1 - wife. With the above observation revision petition is allowed. Judgment dated 14.03.2025 passed in Crl.A. No. 47/2023
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24004 CRL.RP No. 526 of 2025 HC-KAR by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set aside and order dated 13.04.2023 passed on I.A. No. 1 in Crl.Misc. No. 653/2022 by I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru is affirmed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32