The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has partly allowed a criminal petition filed by husband and his parents, holding that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 could not continue against the parents in the absence of specific allegations of domestic violence against them. At the same time, the Court declined to interfere with the interim maintenance awarded to wife.
Justice Venkatesh Naik T passed the order on September 19, 2026, in Criminal Petition Nos. 101593 and 101594 of 2025. The petitions arose from proceedings before the III Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belagavi.
The husband married the respondent-wife on August 21, 2022. According to the respondent-wife, the relationship remained cordial for only a few months, after which she alleged harassment, additional dowry demands and other acts of domestic violence by her husband and his parents. She subsequently initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.
During the proceedings, respondent-wife sought interim maintenance. On July 8, 2024, the Magistrate directed husband to pay her Rs 7,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition. His appeal against that order was dismissed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, on March 6, 2025.
The High Court examined the allegations against the husband and his parents and found that the allegations were principally directed against the husband, while no specific acts were attributed to his parents apart from a general allegation that they supported him.
The Court recorded:
“Upon perusal of the allegations made in the application filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, it clearly demonstrated that the allegations were principally directed against petitioner No.1-husband. The trial Court further observed that there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, except the general allegation that they supported petitioner No.1.”
The Court therefore found that continuation of the proceedings against the parents, without specific allegations constituting domestic violence, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. However, it held that sufficient material existed against the husband for the proceedings to continue.
On maintenance, the High Court noted that the marital relationship was not disputed, respondent-wife had stated that she was unable to maintain herself, and husband was working as an Engineer earning Rs 35,000 per month. The Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the Rs 7,000 monthly interim maintenance awarded by the lower courts.
Criminal Petition No. 101593 of 2025 was partly allowed, and the proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 144 of 2023 were quashed insofar as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, the husband’s parents, were concerned. However, the proceedings against petitioner No. 1, the husband, were permitted to continue.
Criminal Petition No. 101594 of 2025 was dismissed, and the orders granting ₹7,000 per month as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife were upheld. The trial court was directed to expedite the matter without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Case Title: A & Others v. R
Case Number: Criminal Petition Nos. 101593 & 101594 of 2025
