Wife's claim for maintenance was denied due to substantiated evidence of adultery, emphasizing the implications of personal conduct on such claims.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200010 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

PARMESHWAR S/O SAIBANNA PUJARI, AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: NEKRTC, DRIVER, R/O. VILLAGE KURKOTTA, TQ. AND DIST.KALABURAGI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. MAHANANDA W/O PARAMESHWAR, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. VILLAGE KURKOTTA, TQ. AND DIST.KALABURAGI, NOW RESIDING AT BELURA, TQ.BASAVAKALYAN-585327.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHADEV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DATED 10.11.2020 IN CRL.RP.6/2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, BASAVAKALYAN BENCH AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2018 IN CRL.MISC.688/2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BASAVAKALYAN BY DISMISSING THE MAINTANANCE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Mahadev S. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Husband of the respondent is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, sitting at Basava Kalyana in Criminal Revision Petition No.6/2019 dated 10.11.2020 whereby petition filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl.Misc.No.688/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basava Kalyana, came to be allowed in part and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid as monthly maintenance apart from Rs.1,000/- cost.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1 Parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. Revision petitioner is the husband and respondent is the wife.

3.2 Wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basava kalyana.

3.3 It is contended in the said petition that the respondent/ wife herein got married to the revision petitioner/husband in the year 2001 in Belur village of Basava Kalyana as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, couple led happy marital life for 13 years and out of the wed lock three children have born.

4. It is further contended by the wife that at the instigation of the parents and relatives, husband started picking up quarrel and ultimately wife was sent out of the matrimonial house. Therefore, sought for grant of maintenance by contending that, the husband is working in NEKSRTC and getting monthly salary of Rs.19,000/- and also getting income from the landed property situated at Kurkotta village to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and sought for Rs.8,000/- as monthly maintenance.

5. The husband contested the matter by filing detailed written objections taking up the contention that, it is the wife who has voluntarily left the matrimonial home on account of the illicit relationship she had with somebody else and therefore, he is not entitled to maintain her.

6. Evidence of the parties was recorded and after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a cumulative manner, learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition seeking maintenance.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, wife filed a revision before the Distr