Karnataka High Court
Zeeba Bakhtiyar vs Imran Ahmed on 7 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3067
CRL.RP No. 200102 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200102 OF 2025
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ZEEBA BAKHTIYAR
W/O IMRAN AHMED
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O H.NO.8-5-375/2019
AL-JABBAR COLONY, NEAR FIRE STATION
BIDAR-585401
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VEERANI V. NANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAMESH IMRAN AHMED
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
S/O LATE SHAIK CHAND PASHA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
KARNATAKA
OCC: WORKING AS DATA PROCESSOR
AT INSTA GLOBAL SOURCE PVT. LTD
HYDERABAD, R/O PLOT NO.5
SANGAMESHWAR COLONY
CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR-585401
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. FAYEEZ ULLA KHAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/SEC. 397 OF CR.P.C (OLD)
U/SEC. 438 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THE
REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3067
CRL.RP No. 200102 of 2025
HC-KAR
30.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15/2025,
AS AT ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER
DATED 24.01.2025 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
NO.1661/2024 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II
AT BIDAR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section
438 read with 442 of BNSS, 2023, seeking following
reliefs:
a) Allow the revision petition and set aside
order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the
learned Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Bidar
in Cri.A.No.15/2025 at Annexure-A,
consequently confirm the order dated
24.01.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.1661/2024
passed by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II at
Bidar.
b) Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in
the circumstance of the case and in the
interest of justice.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3067
CRL.RP No. 200102 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the
following grounds, which are shown in memorandum of
petition:
i) That the impugned order passed by the learned
Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge is contrary to law, facts and
probabilities of the case, as such, the same is liable to be
set aside.
ii) The petitioner submit that, the Trial Court
during the trial had not called the parties to file affidavit of
Assets and liabilities as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court, hence, the parties have not filed the affidavit, the
Appellate Court without noticing the same has wrongly set
aside the order of maintenance granted by the Trial Court
in Crl.Misc.No.1661/2024 and directed the Trial Court to
secure the affidavit of assets and liabilities is highly
perverse and cannot be sustained in law, hence, the
learned Dist. & Sessions Judge has committed error by
setting aside the order of the Trial Court.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3067
CRL.RP No. 200102 of 2025
HC-KAR
iii) It is submitted that, the appellate Court without
granting any maintenance to the appellate has wrongly set
aside the order of the Trial Court without any observations.
Hence, the learned Dist. & Sessions Judge has committed
error by setting aside the order of the Trial Court. On all
these grounds, prays to allow the petition.
3. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court.
4. The petitioner-Zeeba Bakhtiyar has filed the
petition under Section 12(1), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
(for short, ‘the D.V.Act’), before the Civil Judge & JMFC,
Bidar, in Crl.Misc.No.1661/2024. I.A.No.I was filed under
Section 23 of D.V.Act. The same was partly allowed by
the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Bidar, vide order dated
04.01.2025 and awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to
the petitioner and her child till disposal of main petition.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3067
CRL.RP No. 200102 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. This order was challenged by the respondent-
husband before the Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Bidar
(for short, ‘the Appellate Court’) in Crl.A.No.15/2025. The
same came to be partly allowed. Being aggrieved by this
order, the revision petitioner has filed the present petition
before this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent
remained absent. Hence, arguments on behalf of
respondent taken as nil.
7. A perusal of materials placed before this Court,
it is crystal clear that the Trial Court has not directed the
parties to file their affidavit as to their assets and
liabilities as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Ors.,
[Crl.A.No.730/2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.9503 of 2018) DD 04.11.2020]. The Appellate
Court has rightly observed in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 as
under:
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3067
CRL.RP No. 200102 of 2025HC-KAR
“10. In the impugned order, the Trial Court has
observed that the respondent has not produced any
document to show that he is not drawing salary of
Rs.1,50,000/- as contended by the petitioner.
According to the appellant he was working in
software sector, but his salary was not Rs.1,50,000/-
and now he has left the said job also. In this regard,
he has produced some documents before this Court.
However, as per the impugned order he had not
produced those documents before the Trial Court
while considering the application under Section 23 of
the PWDV Act. Further from the perusal of order
sheet and the impugned order, it can be seen that
there is no whisper with regard to filing of affidavit of
assets and liabilities either by the petitioner or the
respondent as mandated by Hon’ble Apex Court is
mandatory without which the Trial Court could not
have passed interim order. Therefore, the appellant
has made out that there is a ground to interfere with
the impugned order of the Trial Court.
11. However, it is pertinent to note that a child has
born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and
respondent No.1 on 03.01.2024 and child is with the
complainant. Therefore, the respondent No.1 being
the father of the minor child has liability to maintain
the minor child. In this appeal, the appellant has
sought for reducing the interim maintenance amount
from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the liability of the respondent No.1 to
maintain his minor son and the directions of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, this Court is of the
opinion that interference in the impugned order of
the Trial Court is called for. Accordingly, I answer
point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 partly in
the affirmative.”
8. With the above observations, the Appellate
Court has passed the following order:
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3067
CRL.RP No. 200102 of 2025HC-KAR
“Appeal filed under Section 29 of the PWDV Act, is
partly allowed. The impugned order dated
04.01.2025 passed in D.V.No.1661/2024 on the file
of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Bidar is set aside with
a direction to the Trial Court to secure the affidavit of
assets and liabilities as mandated by Hon’ble Apex
Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and to decide the said
application afresh in accordance with the directions
of Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra.
However, as discussed in the body of judgment,
responsibility of the respondent to maintain the
minor son is absolute and therefore respondent No.1
is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per
month to the petitioner towards the minor child till
the disposal of the interim application under Section
23(2) of the PWDV Act in accordance with the
directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of
Rajnesh vs. Neha.
Parties to bear their own cost.”
9. A perusal of the above order passed by the
Appellate Court, I do not find any legal or factual error in
passing the impugned order dated 30.06.2025. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is dismissed.
(ii) Respondent No.1-husband is directed to
pay the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per
month to the petitioner towards the minor
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3067
CRL.RP No. 200102 of 2025HC-KAR
child till the disposal of interim application
under Section 23(2) of PWDV Act.
(iii) The petitioner is at liberty to urge all the
grounds before the Trial Court by filing
affidavit as to the assets and liabilities as
per the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra).
(iv) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
case as early as possible under the
provisions of D.V.Act.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion as to the merits of the case.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to
the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41
CT-BH
