Bangalore District Court
Karthik Ramakrishnan vs Rajani Acharya on 10 July, 2025
1 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023
KABC010279032023
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
:Present:
Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A.,LL.B (Hon`s) LL.M.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
Crl.A.No.1488/2023
Appellant: Sri Karthik Ramakrishnan
S/o Ramakrishnan
Aged about 41 years,
R/at. 446, GPR Grande Layout
Chandapura
Bangalore-560 099
(Smt.Anushree Menon, Advocate for
Appellant)
Vs.
Respondent: Smt. Rajani Acharya
W/o Karthik Ramakrishnan
Aged about 31 years
R/at. No.16, 11th Cross
BSK 1st Stage
Ashoknagar
Bengaluru
(Sri Raghunandan A.R. Advocate)
2 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, assails the correctness and sustainability of the interim order on I.A.No.1 dated 11.09.2023 rendered in Crl. Misc. No.17/2023 on the file of the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Learned Magistrate directed the appellant / respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of the application till final disposal of the case.
2. The Respondent in Crl.Misc.17/2023 before the trial court having preferred the instant appeal against the petitioner/applicant as the appellant and the respondent are hereby assigned with their original ranks before the trial court i.e., the appellant as respondent and respondent as original petitioner in the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confusion and perplexity.
3. The factual matrix of the case are that the 3 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 parties were united in matrimony on 1.9.2022, solemnised in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The marriage, however, proved to be short-lived. The parties alleged to be separated on 7.10.2022 barely 34 days in to their marital life. The respondent-wife initiated proceedings under the PWDV Act alleging emotional, mental and physical cruelty and also filed an I.A. seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- p.m. asserting that the appellant husband earns Rs.1.66 lakh per month as an employee of NTT Data.
4. The Appellant while admitting the marital relationship vehemently denied all allegations and contended that the petition is an abuse of process, devoid of bonafides and filed solely to extract financial relief. He placed reliance on salary slips, IT returns and affidavits to establish that his average net monthly income is Rs.1,12,000/- and not Rs.1,66,000/- or Rs.1,24,000/- as erroneously recorded by the trial court. The respondent has not disputed the educational qualifications (a B.Com., graduate) nor offered a plausible explanation to her failure to seek employment.
4 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023
5. The trial court, heard the arguments of counsel for petitioner and respondent. Thereafter, the trial Court partly allowed the I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner/ respondent herein Under Sec.23(2) of of PWDV Act by passing the impugned order dated 11.09.2023.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order Dated; 11.09.2023 the appellant/ respondents before the trial court, has filed this appeal on the following among the other grounds.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
a) The trial court's evaluation of the petitioner's salary contains a significant error. Despite the petitioner consistently receiving a monthly salary of Rs 1,15,000, the lower court incorrectly documented this amount as Rs.1,24,000. This discrepancy is substantial and needs to be rectified to ensure the accuracy of the petitioner's financial circumstances in the legal proceedings.
b) To provide further clarification, it's important to note that the petitioner's most recent two months' salaries were Rs 1,13,000 and Rs 1,14,000, respectively. These figures 5 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 indicate that the petitioner's average monthly salary is substantially lower, amounting to only Rs 1,12,000. The discrepancy of Rs 12,000 between the recorded amount and the actual average salary is substantial and highlights the importance of correcting this error.
c) Furthermore, it's crucial to understand that any additional income of 10-12k that the petitioner occasionally receives is not a regular or consistent part of their monthly earnings. This extra income is a result of the petitioner taking on additional work on specific occasions, and it should not be factored into the assessment of their standard monthly salary.
d) In summary, the trial court's error in assessing the petitioner's salary is significant, and it is essential to rectify this mistake to ensure an accurate representation of the petitioner's financial situation in the legal proceedings.
e) The respondent has failed to furnish financial statements for the last three years, and this omission has led to an error by the trial court. It is additionally presented that the respondent, holding a B.Com degree, has 6 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 intentionally abandoned the petitioner without justifiable cause, aiming to extract money from the petitioner. The respondent possesses the qualifications and capability to support herself. The respondent's duration in this marriage barely amounted ted to 34 days before her departure, despite the petitioner's persistent attempts at reconciliation.
f) It is further submitted that the respondent has not applied for job as she wants to sit idle and remain financial burden on the petitioner to gain monetary relief from the petitioner and the respondent is an able bodied person and the respondent cannot be given license to misuse the benevolent provisions of the Act to cause her unjust enrichment.
g) It is further submitted that the respondent, despite having the ability to work and support herself, has chosen not to pursue employment. Instead, she has opted to remain financially dependent on the respondent, her spouse. This decision appears to be motivated by a desire to extract monetary benefits or financial relief from the respondent.
h) In essence, the respondent is being 7 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 portrayed as someone who is intentionally idle and relying on the petitioner to provide for her financial needs. This reliance on the petitioner's financial support is seen as a deliberate strategy to gain advantages or financial compensation from the petitioner, potentially through legal means.
i) The statement also highlights that the respondent's actions are not in line with the principles of fairness and justice. It argues that allowing the respondent to continue in this manner would be tantamount to misusing the legal provisions intended to provide support and protection to individuals in genuine need. Instead, the respondent's behavior is seen as an attempt to unjustly enrich herself at the respondent's expense.
j) In summary, the statement accuses the respondent of deliberately avoiding work, depending on the petitioner financially, and using legal provisions inappropriately for her financial gain, which is considered unfair and contrary to the intended purpose of such provisions. In numerous cases observed that having capability to work, she cannot be idle and demand compensation from the husband and In a major decision the Karnataka High 8 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 Court has ruled that when a married woman is capable of working, she cannot expect heavy compensation from her husband.
k) The respondent has not produced any documents and has not produced the bank statements for three financial years, the respondent is having multiple bank accounts and has failed to produce the statements of all the banks in order to illegally take the benefit of maintenance.
l) The order passed by the trial court is highly illegal, unjust and arbitrary and the same has been passed without considering the materials on record in their proper prospective.
Hence, the Appellants pray before this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2023 in Crl.Misc.17/2023 pending on V MMTC, Bengaluru by allowing this Criminal Appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
7. Having meticulously perused the record, the grounds of appeal, and the rival contentions, the following pivotal points emerge for determination in this appeal: 9 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023
1) Whether the impugned order
dt.11.9.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.17/2023 by the trial court
granting interim maintenance of
Rs.20000/- p.m. in favour of
respondent/ wife is sustainable in law and on facts?
2) Whether the impugned order warrants interference by this court?
3) What order?
8. This court upon re-appreciation of available materials on record with reference to prevailing law of the land, proceeds to give findings to the above points as follows:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per final order for the following.
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1 and 2:- The petition averments and trial records depict that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 1.9.2022 at Rajathadri Palace Hotel, Uttarahalli, Bangalore in accordance with Hindu 10 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 rites and customs. The respondent wife alleges that she was subjected to emotional and mental and verbal abuse in the matrimonial home and eventually forced to leave on 7.10.2022. She then filed an application seeking interim maintenance under Sec.23(2) of PWDV Act contending that the appellant is employed as a System Integration specialist at NTT Data, earning Rs.1,66,000/- p.m.
10. The appellant/husband while admitting the marriage, stoutly denied all allegations of domestic violations and submitted that the petition is a calculated attempt to harass and extract money from him. He contended that the respondent deserted him voluntarily within a mere 34 days of marriage, despite his genuine attempts at reconciliation and that she has sufficient educational qualification being a B.Com., graduate and capable of maintaining herself.
11. At the outset, this court must, observe that the trial court has committed grave errors in appreciation of financial documents and failed to address the significant legal and factual infirmities brought on record, by the 11 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 present appellant. The order under challenge suffers from lack of judicial scrutiny on the marital points and appears to have been rendered in a cursory manner and thereby warranting the indulgence of this court.
12. At this stage it is necessary to briefly allude to the submissions made by the respondent/wife, who sought interim maintenance under Sec.23(2) of PWDV Act. She has alleged that immediately upon entering the matrimonial home she was subjected to a shockingly poor standard of living, contrary to the representations made by the appellant prior to marriage. She further averred that the appellant was controlling, aggressing and verbally abusive, and that the environment at the appellant's residence was emotionally unsafe, ultimately compelling her to leave the matrimonial home within a span of just 34 days.
13. The respondent/wife also submitted that the appellant attempted to isolate her from his family, demanded that she comply with his terms unconditionally, allegedly humiliated both the respondent and her mother 12 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 among their extended circles. She asserted that there was emotional and psychological abuse and even alleged verbal threats and physical intimidation during arguments, particularly one incident on 07.10.2022 when she refused to bear a child at that moment. It is on the basis of these alleged acts of domestic violence that she claimed mental cruelty and prayed for interim maintenance to sustain herself independently.
14. The respondent has further asserted that she is currently unemployed and despite being a commerce graduate, she is residing with her widowed mother and has no source of income. She contended that she is entitled to live a life of dignity and sustenance, and the appellant, being her legally wedded husband and salaried IT professional, is under a statutory and moral obligation to maintain her until the disposal of the case. She claimed that the appellant earns a gross salary of Rs.1,66,000/- per month and is well capable of providing interim financial support.
15. At the very foundation, it is imperative to note 13 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 that, interim maintenance being a form of temporary relief, is not to be granted in mechanical or perfunctory manner. The order passed must reflect a judicious equilibrium between the financial capability of the husband and lawful needs of the wife and the back ground of the marriage itself. In the case at hand, this equilibrium appears to have been completely overlooked by the trial court.
16. The first and foremost ground urged in the memorandum of appeal is the incorrect recording of the monthly salary of the appellant as Rs.1,24,000/-, whereas the actual average net salary of the appellant, based on the past two months stands at Rs.1,12,000/- the appellant has annexed his salary slips for the months of July and August 2023, reflecting monthly earning of Rs.1,13,000/- and Rs.1,14,000/- respectively. These figures have not been disputed by the respondent. This discrepancy of Rs.12,000 is not trivial but forms the very basis of determining quantum of maintenance. The trial court failed to make this vital, factual correction despite the availability of incontrovertible evidence.
14 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023
17. The second ground relates to erroneous reliance by the trial court on the occasional additional income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- as a constant monthly earning of the appellant. It is well settled in jurisprudence that irregular or freelance based income cannot be treated as part of party's fixed monthly earnings, unless proven to be stable, continuous, and predictable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha decided on 4 November, 2020 reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Equivalent citations: AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 569, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 915) has clearly emphasized that only consistent and regular income must be considered while assessing maintenance obligation. This aspect has been entirely ignored by the trial court.
18. The third and the fourth ground raised in appeal underscore the respondents failure to disclose her own income, assets or employment status. She has neither filed any bank statement for the preceding financial years, nor she has produced her income tax returns, despite having multiple bank accounts and academic qualification. 15 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 She has deliberately chosen non-disclosure of material financial facts, thereby seeking to unjustly benefit from her self-imposed unemployment.
19. The fifth and sixth grounds make a crucial legal submission that the respondent, though able bodied educated and employable, has abstained from seeking employment.
20. The appellant has also made a compelling case that the entire duration of cohabitation was only 34 days and the breakdown of the marriage occurred almost instantaneously. There has been neither contribution by the respondent to the household nor has there been any child born out of the wedlock. These factors further diminish any equitable claim of sustained dependency or hardship that the respondent may plead.
21. Another serious flaw in the impugned order is that it fails to distinguish between need and entitlement. The respondent has stated that her monthly expenses are Rs.50000/- without any supporting material. The trial court accepted this unverified and exaggerated claim 16 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 without insisting upon prima-facie evidence, thereby violating the principles laid down in Kusum Sharma vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma 2020 SCC OnLine Delhi 746 which mandates both the parties to file detailed affidavits of income, assets, expenditure and liabilities.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Badshah vs Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr reported in (2014)1 SCC 188 and Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors., 2015 (6) SCC 353, has clarified that maintenance is to protect women from destitution and vagrancy, and not to create undue financial pressure or punish the husband. In this case, the respondent has chosen to withdraw from the marital home within 34 days and has not demonstrated any post separation financial hardship by any material evidence.
23. The appellant has convincingly established, through documentary evidence, that his actual average monthly salary is Rs.1,12,000/-, and not Rs.1,24,000/- as erroneously recorded by the learned Magistrate. His salary slips for the two latest months reflect Rs.1,13,000/- and 17 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 Rs.1,14,000/- respectively, post deductions. The occasional addition of Rs.10,000 to Rs.12,000/- arising out of project-based assignments is neither regular nor assured. The trial court's mechanical reliance on gross salary figures without accounting for statutory deductions, professional tax, and deductions towards loans, was per se flawed and misplaced.
24. It is trite law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324], that courts must prudently assess net take-home salary for determining maintenance obligations. The learned Magistrate, while quoting the decision, failed to apply its spirit.
25. The respondent-wife has failed to place on record her own bank statements, financial assets, or income particulars for the preceding three financial years. On the other hand, she has selectively projected her dependence without substantiating inability to work. The respondent is admittedly a graduate in commerce (B.Com), which undeniably equips her with sufficient educational 18 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 qualification to secure employment and sustain herself.
26. The appellant has specifically pleaded that he has incurred personal debts, including a hand loan of Rs. 4,00,000/-, to meet both personal and familial obligations. Though no documents are furnished, the plea of indebtedness coupled with salary deductions ought to have been considered as a mitigating factor while fixing the quantum of maintenance. This was summarily ignored by the trial court.
27. The trial court's assessment, though claiming to be guided by Rajnesh v. Neha, fails to apply the essential tests of:
• Assessing genuineness of need; • Ensuring complete disclosure by both parties; • Avoiding mechanical fixation of maintenance; • Considering short duration of marriage and voluntary desertion.
28. This Court is constrained to observe that the trial court has passed the order in utter disregard to the record and has mechanically computed m aintenance at Rs.20,000/-, based on improper appreciation of evidence 19 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 and without independent application of mind to the circumstances unique to this case.
29. In light of the foregoing discussion, it becomes manifest that the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasoned, and contrary to settled principles of law. The same deserves to be set aside, with a direction to the trial court to reconsider the application afresh after securing complete financial disclosures from both parties, and applying the correct legal tests. Hence, I answer Point No.1: In the Negative and Point No.2: In the Affirmative.
30. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant under Sec.29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby ALLOWED.
The impugned order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the learned V MMTC, Bengaluru, in C.Misc. No. 17/2023 is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate with a direction to rehear 20 Crl.Apl.No.1488/2023 and dispose of I.A. No.1 under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act afresh, after securing:
(a) The respondent's complete bank statements for the past three years,
(b) Income Tax returns,
(c) Details of any movable or immovable properties, and
(d) Any proof of previous or current employment/income.
Both parties shall be given full opportunity to file additional affidavits and documents, if any, within 15 days from the date of first appearance.
The learned trial court shall decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within 45 days, uninfluenced by any observations made in the earlier order.
Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-1 directly on the computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of July, 2025) (Shirin Javeed Ansari) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.