Karnataka High Court
Sri Vajresh L vs Smt. M Babisha on 2 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34368
CRL.RP No. 949 of 2025
C/W CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 949 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1061 OF 2025
IN CRL.RP No. 949/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VAJRESH L,
S/O. LAKSHMANA S. @ SUBBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. SMT. MUNIRATHNA,
W/O LAKSHMANA S. @ SUBBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT -
NO. 29/1A, NEW BANK COLONY,
ANJANAPURA MAIN ROAD,
KONANAKUNTE, BANGALORE 560 062.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHESH B J, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PRAMILA G V AND:
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
1. SMT. M BABISHA,
W/O. SRI. VAJRESH L,AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
2. KUMARI. UDVITA VAISHNAVI,
D/O SMT. M. BABISHA AND L. VAJRESH,
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER, SMT M BABISHA, RESIDING AT -NO.546, 16TH
CROSS, NEW BEL ROAD, DEVASANDRA,BANGALORE-
560021,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M B RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W
442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34368
CRL.RP No. 949 of 2025
C/W CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT IN CRL.A.NO.1364/2023 DTD 02.06.2025 PASSED BY
THE LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65)
BENGALURU.
IN CRL.RP NO. 1061/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. M BABISHA,
W/O SRI L. VAJRESH, AGED 23 YEARS, R/AT NO. 546,
16TH CROSS, NEW BEL ROAD,
DEVASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560094.
2. KURNARI UDVITA VAISHNAVI,
D/O SMT. M. BABISHA AND SRI L. VAJRESH,
AGED 3 YEARS 10 MONTHS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER
PETITIONER NO.1, R/AT NO.546, 16TH CROSS, NEW BEL
ROAD, DEVASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560094.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M B RAVIKUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI VAJRESH L,
S/O. LAKSHMANA S. @ SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. SMT MUNIRATHNA,
W/O. LAKSHMANA S. @ SUBBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT. NO.29/1A,
NEW BANK COLONY, ANJANAPURA MAIN ROAD,
KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 560 062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH B J, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438
R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE
COURT IN CRL.A.NO.1364/2023 DATED 02.06.2025 AS FAR AS
AWARDING INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF RS.35000/- AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:34368
CRL.RP No. 949 of 2025
C/W CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2025
HC-KAR
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents.
2. These petitions are filed assailing the order on interim maintenance on an application filed by the wife against husband.
3. The order emanates from the proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The application is filed by the wife and the minor daughter (hereinafter referred to as respondents) claiming interim maintenance of Rs.1.00 lakh per month. Husband opposed the application.
4. Trial Court allowed the application in part and awarded Rs.20,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondents together.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:34368 CRL.RP No. 949 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. Sessions Court in terms of the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal in part and directed the husband to pay Rs.35,000/- per month to the respondents as interim maintenance.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband and his mother have filed Criminal Revision Petition No.949/2025 and the wife and daughter have filed Criminal Revision Petition No.1061/2025.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No.949/2025 would submit that interim maintenance of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Sessions Court is without any basis and unreasonable given the fact that the petitioner is not having any income. It is his further submission that he has only studied up to 12th standard. Except rental income of Rs.5,36,000/- per annum as per the income tax returns filed by the petitioner No.1, there is no other income is the contention.
8. The evidence is led before the Trial Court relating to the contentions in respect of the parties and the case is now -5- NC: 2025:KHC:34368 CRL.RP No. 949 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2025 HC-KAR set-down for final arguments and the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Trial Court is just and reasonable taking into consideration the income and capacity of the husband-petitioner No.1, as such it is urged that the Criminal Revision Petition No.949/2025 be allowed and the impugned orders be set-aside and the matter be remitted to the Trial Court to decide the application filed by the respondents in accordance with law.
9. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No.949/2025 that the assets which are standing in the name of the husband though worth Rs.9.00 crores are not generating any income and asset value is not the criterion to determine the interim maintenance payable to the respondents. It is also his further submission that wife has left the company of the husband without any reasonable cause. However, petitioner No.1 is agreeable to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance of the daughter.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that petitioner-husband has suppressed several material facts, he has not disclosed his assets with an intention to avoid -6- NC: 2025:KHC:34368 CRL.RP No. 949 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2025 HC-KAR liability to pay maintenance. It is also his submission that the daughter is studying and wife is not having any independent source of income and she is pursuing post graduation in Business Administration and the Appellate Court is not justified in awarding Rs.35,000/- to the respondents. It is further submitted that considering the income and assets possessed by the petitioner-husband, monthly maintenance of Rs.35,000/- is grossly inadequate.
11. It is further submitted that the respondents are not having their own residential accommodation and respondent- wife is staying with her parents and the husband is under obligation to arrange for residential accommodation to the wife and daughter and given the higher rental value in Bengaluru, respondents need Rs.1.00 lakh per month towards their monthly expenses for food, shelter and education.
12. It is also his further submission that the value of the assets possessed by the petitioner is not less than Rs.25.00 crores. It is his submission that valuation made by the respondents is based on guidance value and actual market -7- NC: 2025:KHC:34368 CRL.RP No. 949 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2025 HC-KAR value is much more than the guidance value reflected in the notification relating to the value of the properties.
13. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
14. It is noticed by this Court that the parties have led evidence before the Trial Court relating to their respective claim. Trial Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month which is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- per month by the Appellate Court. Daughter is admittedly aged 4 years. It is further submitted that wife is pursuing her postgraduation in Business Administration and this fact is not disputed.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband also does not dispute the fact that the wife and the daughter are residing in the parents' house of the wife. It is not the case of the husband that wife has an independent source of income of her own. The guidance value of the 1st petitioner's property is Rs.9.00 crores as submitted by the husband. Taking into consideration the admitted rental income (according to the petitioner) of Rs.5,36,550/- per annum, this Court is of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:34368 CRL.RP No. 949 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2025 HC-KAR view that Rs.35,000/- awarded in favour of the respondents is inadequate.
16. This Court is of the view that considering the husband's asset value, monthly interim maintenance has to be much more than Rs.35,000/-.
17. Considering the nature and value of assets submitted by both parties, and considering the fact that wife and daughter are not having their own residence, considering the need with reference to the life style noticed from the photographs produced before the Court, which the petitioner No.1 - husband has not denied to be his photographs, this Court is of the view that husband shall pay Rs.75,000/- every month as interim maintenance to the respondents, subject to the final decision of the Court, which is pending consideration before the Trial Court.
18. It is also made clear that the observations made by this Court should not be construed as having expressed any opinion on the final claim of either of the parties to the proceeding. The main petition before the trial Court is to be -9- NC: 2025:KHC:34368 CRL.RP No. 949 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2025 HC-KAR decided on its merit without being influenced by the order granting Rs.75000.00 per month as maintenance.
19. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition No.949/2025 is dismissed.
(ii) Criminal Revision Petition No.1061/2025 is allowed-in-
part.
(iii) The petitioner-husband shall pay Rs.75,000/- every month as interim maintenance to his wife and daughter together till the disposal of the proceeding before the Trial Court.
(iv) The enhanced amount of monthly interim maintenance of Rs.75,000/- be paid from the date of the application.
(v) Three months time from today is granted to the petitioner to pay arrears of maintenance.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8