Sri G Mohan Rao v. Smt Vandana Sampalli

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6546 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SRI G.MOHAN RAO S/O G.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NIMBAGALL VILLAGE, AD POST, URAVAKONDA MANDALAM AND TALUK, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 312. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.N.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:

SMT. VANDANA SAMPALLI W/O G. MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT CJN SRI FORTUNE APARTMENT SAI VIVEKANANDA COLONY, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU - 562 114. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ALEXANDER JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU ON THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.01/2026 FILED U/S 29 OF PROTECTION WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.37/2026 AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶2The present petition is filed challenging an order dated

12.03.2026, passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural, on an interlocutory application No.1/2026, issuing notice to the respondent, in Criminal Appeal No.37/2026, filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has questioned the order granting interim maintenance of `20,000/- per month.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, within 15 days of the impugned order, a non-bailable warrant

has been issued against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the maintenance as ordered. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is under challenge before the Sessions Court and as such, non-bailable warrant could not have been issued so hurriedly.

¶4It is further submitted that the petitioner's income per month is less than the income of the respondent.

¶5Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner's income is much more than the income of the respondent. Though the respondent is getting an income around `70,000 per month, she is paying `40,000/- towards EMI to discharge the loan, which respondent has availed to purchase the residential flat in which she is now residing.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also contributed around `28/- lakhs to purchase the said flat which cost around `50/- to 60/- lakhs.

¶7Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in case the petitioner addresses the argument on merits of the appeal, instead of the interlocutory application seeking stay,

petitioner would not oppose the stay of the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner.

¶8Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would address the arguments on the main appeal on the next date of hearing. The submissions made on both sides are placed on record.

¶9This Court has noticed that the Sessions Court has not yet decided the Criminal Appeal No.37/2026 and has also not decided the interim application seeking stay.

¶10Therefore, the petition is disposed of.

¶11An observation that the petitioner and the respondent shall address the argument on the merits of the Criminal Appeal No.37/2026 before the concerned Court on 01.10.2026.

¶12Either of the parties are at liberty to move an application for advancing the date and to get the matter listed on 01.10.2026.

¶13It is made clear that on 01.10.2026, the parties shall not seek adjournment.

¶14Till then, the operation of the non-bailable warrant is stayed.

¶15It is made clear that this Court has not expressed on the merit of the case. The contentions of both the parties are kept open.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6