Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026 – Judgement Summary

498A IPC: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Neighbour Under CrPC 482 (BNSS 528)

In Asha G Vs State of Karnataka, the High Court of Karnataka addressed a crucial legal issue regarding the misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes.

The petitioner, who was merely a neighbour of the complainant, sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now BNSS Section 528). The allegations against her were limited to instigating the husband, without any direct involvement in matrimonial cruelty or dowry harassment.

After examining the complaint and charge sheet, the Court observed that:

The petitioner was not a relative of the husband.
Allegations were vague and omnibus, lacking specific acts.
Inclusion of the petitioner amounted to misuse of criminal law.

Consequently, the Court held that continuing proceedings against the neighbour would be an abuse of process of law, and therefore quashed the case against her.

“The name of this petitioner is nowhere found except contending that she has instigated the husband… otherwise the petitioner would not fit into the definition of family as is obtaining under Section 498A of the IPC.”

“Neighbours of the husband’s family are not relatives of the husband and cannot be implicated for offences under Section 498A of the IPC.”
“Permitting further proceedings against this petitioner would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Quashing of FIR
Relative under Section 498A IPC
Abuse of Process of Law
False Implication in Matrimonial Disputes
Requirement of Specific Allegations in FIR/Charge Sheet

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Mohammed Azeem Vs Sabeeha & Ors on 22 Sep 2025

Posted on February 18 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Karnataka held that a Family Court has no jurisdiction to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) for recovery of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Court ruled that enforcement of maintenance orders must strictly follow the mechanism provided under Section 125(3) CrPC read with Section 421 CrPC. It permits recovery through attachment and sale of property, and not by issuance of a Look Out Circular.

The Court further observed that continuing an LOC despite a judicial stay order amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Below are the crucial paragraphs that formed the foundation of the Court’s decision:

Para 2
“It is submitted that Section 125(3) provides that in enforcement of the maintenance order Court may issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for fines as prescribed under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Section 421 provides that a warrant for levy of fine by attachment of sale of immovable property.”
“Proviso to Section 421 provides that no such warrant shall be executed by arrest or detention in prison of the offender. The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing the order of maintenance.”
“The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing an order that is passed under Section 125 of CrPC.”
“Maintenance orders passed under Section 125 of CrPC is a civil obligation enforced through judicial orders. If party defaults the remedy is to seek execution of the order i.e., attachment of property, warrant of arrest and civil imprisonment.”
“Look out circulars are meant to prevent the accused/offenders from evading criminal process. The LOC cannot be issued for recovering the dues of maintenance.”
Para 6
“Further, continuing the LOC despite the order passed by the Court is illegal and amounts to contempt of Court and it also amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Mohammed Azeem Vs Saheeba and Ors

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Judgments about Look Out Circular notices is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.,

+91-9606345150

Abuzar Ahmed and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 8 Jan 2026

Posted on February 17 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A and Section 504 of the IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court examined the complaint in detail. It found that the allegations described routine marital disagreements. They did not disclose grave cruelty or a specific unlawful dowry demand.

The Bench clarified an important principle. Section 498A IPC does not criminalise incompatibility or ordinary wear and tear of marriage. Criminal law cannot become a tool in matrimonial discord.

The following paragraphs formed the core reasoning of the Court:

Para 8
“A careful reading of the complaint reveals grievances such as dietary restrictions, expectations regarding attire, allocation of household responsibilities, disagreements over television preferences laced with a statement that the husband treated the complainant/wife as his servant. These allegations even if accepted at face value, portray a portrait of marital discord, but falls woefully short of depicting the statutory cruelty contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC.”
Para 8 (continued)
“If this is the complaint against the husband and in-laws, it cannot but be held that it is an abuse of the process of law, as minor skirmishes that happens in the family between the husband and the wife are projected to become a crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or even under Section 504 IPC.”
Para 9
“The law does not criminalize incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages. Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills. It is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so wilful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry.”
Para 12
“The present case forms, as observed hereinabove, a classic illustration of the said abuse. The Apex Court, in such cases, holds that the offence should be nipped in the bud by interfering under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”
Para 26
“The allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt have been made with a mala-fide intent with vague and general allegations… It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.”

Abuzar ahmed Vs State of Karanataka on 8 Jan 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan
B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
Contact : 9606345150

Lakshmayya Vs M.Shivalingamma and Anr on 04 Mar 2024

Posted on January 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Kalaburagi bench held as follows,

From Para 7,

7. On examination of the materials placed by the petitioner i.e., the health card issued by the concerned authority, reveals that the name of the wife of the petitioner is shown as Adilakshmi and name of this petitioner’s son as D. Vamshi Krishna and they are residing in Pesalabanda, D.No.1/207/1, Pesalbanda (VS), Pesalabanda (V), Adoni (M), Kurnool district. This document is not disputed by the other side as the respondent No.1 has remained absent as per the order dated 14.09.2023. The impugned order passed by the Family Court does not reveal that whether the respondent No.1 has complied mandatory provisions under Order VI Rule 14A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or not. Keeping in mind the non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Order VI Rule 14A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and also the address shown in the health card issued by the concerned authorities to the present petitioner, it is just and proper to set aside the exparte order passed by the Family Court and remand the matter to the Family Court by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to file his statement of objection. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a ground to set aside the exparte order passed by the Family Court and remand the matter to the Family Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the affirmative.

Lakshmayya Vs M.Shivalingamma and Anr on 04 Mar 2024

Citations: [2024:KHC-K:1930]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67c61f046d1ac4155ace7a2a

Index of maintenance judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025

Posted on October 20, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A wonderful judgment from a single judge of Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru bench, acknowledging that litigants lie in their income affidavit and directing the Family Courts to initiate perjury proceedings in accordance with law.

From Paras 10 to 13,

10. Time and again, it is seen by this Court that in several matters, the parties deliberately do not disclose their correct income, avocation, details of assets and liabilities with an intent to portray lesser income and secure favourable order by misleading and misguiding the Court, which is highly deplorable. In the present case, the respondent has deliberately suppressed the materials, which was well within her knowledge and played mischief and mislead the Court to get a favourable order. The sanctity of the Court and its orders would necessarily have to be respected by all the parties to the proceedings and so also by the learned counsel representing the parties.
11. This Court hopes and trusts that the learned counsels representing the parties advise their respective parties with regard to seriousness and sanctity of the Court orders and also be aware themselves of the sanctity of the Court orders and warn their clients/parties with regard to legal consequences of misleading, misrepresenting, filing false affidavit and adducing false statements on oath by way of oral and documentary evidence.
12. In view of several instances where parties are careless and deliberately making false statements on oath and filing false affidavits, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Family Court/Trial Court dealing with such matters to initiate suitable action in accordance with law so that careless filing of affidavits and casual approach before the Court while filing assets and liabilities in the form of affidavits and adducing evidence before the Court is curbed and the person at fault is penalized by appropriate action of the Court.
13. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to issue following guidelines and directions to Family Courts and trial Courts dealing in maintenance applications:
a) Family Courts/Trial Courts dealing in maintenance applications shall insist on filing assets and liabilities and expenses as per the judgment in the case of Rajnesh -vs- Neha and another reported in (2021)2 SCC 324.
b) If an application is filed to summon salary details or other source of income by either spouse, the same shall be considered favourably, in the interest of justice.
c) If the Family Courts/Trial Courts are of the opinion that the salary certificates/details and particulars of other source of income are required to decide the maintenance application, it shall do so by passing suo motu orders for the same from either or both spouses.
d) In case of false Affidavits filed on oath and false information given deliberately to mislead and secure favourable orders by such information, the defaulting party shall be liable to face legal consequences in accordance to law.
e) Any such maintenance secured by way of such misleading and false/wrong information, shall be ordered to be refunded to the aggrieved party.
f) Maintenance applications both interim and main shall be decided expeditiously.
g) These Guidelines shall be strictly followed and adhered.

Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025

Citations: [2025:KHC:11787]

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here. Index of DV Judgments is here.

Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025

Posted on October 20, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment from a single judge of Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru bench, refusing maintenance to a lying wife and directing to initiate perjury proceedings in accordance with law.

From Paras 7 to 11,

7. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh stated supra, in all the maintenance petitions, parties are duty bound to file assets and liabilities and disclose their true income, avocation, employment and so also details of income, assets and liabilities of the other spouse. In the present case, petitioner – husband has filed assets and liabilities showing the details of his employment, income etc., It is also stated about job of the respondent and what is the income drawn by the respondent – wife. On the contrary, respondent – wife though filed assets and liabilities for the 2nd time on 8.11.2022, very cleverly and intentionally suppressed fact of her employment as a Guest Teacher in Government Junior Primary School and income she is getting from the said employment. Nothing prevented the respondent from saying so in the affidavit of assets and she was not asked by her counsel with regard to disclosing her employment and the income and if it was brought to her notice and knowledge, she would have definitely disclosed the same in the affidavit. The fact that she has sought for unconditional apology itself apparently clear that she has suppressed the true facts before the Court. This kind of suppression of material before the Court with deliberate intention to mislead the Court to obtain a favourable order in the maintenance cases is deplorable and cannot be accepted. Fortunately, the petitioner is able to secure certain information under the RTI Act, due to which Court came to know with regard to employment of the respondent, otherwise, it would not have come to the notice of the Court. Such attitude and behaviour of the respondent before the Court is deplorable and cannot be accepted.
8. In the present case on hand, the income generated by the respondent – wife during her employment as a Guest Teacher was around Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, which is not clearly stated. If the average is taken, it is Rs.12,500/- per month. Whereas, the petitioner – husband is earning Rs.47,240/- and after deduction getting Rs.21,000/- per month.
9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the respondent – wife was working and capable of working and earning as on the date of filing 2nd affidavit of assets and liabilities before the Family Court. It is not the case of the respondent that she is unable to work and incapable to earn income and therefore to be maintained by the petitioner. It is also stated that there are no children from the marriage. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent – wife would not be entitled to maintenance.
10. The intent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh stated supra is to render justice to the parties on the basis of self declaration of assets and liabilities including income and occupation. But, it is seen that in most of the cases, there is deliberate suppression of facts only with an intention to secure favourable order. In view of several instances where parties are careless and deliberately making false statements on oath and filing false affidavits, this Court in RPFC No.24/2023 decided on 20th March 2025 directed the Family Court/Trial Court dealing with such matters to initiate suitable action in accordance with law so that careless filing of affidavits and casual approach before the Court while filing assets and liabilities in the form of affidavits and adducing evidence before the Court is curbed and the person at fault is penalized by appropriate action of the Court. This Court issued certain guidelines and directions to the Family Courts/Trial Courts dealing in maintenance applications. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Family Court to initiate suitable action against the respondent – wife after affording reasonable opportunity
to both the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order of the Family Court, petitioner has deposited Rs.25,000/- in the execution proceedings. In view of the respondent – wife having suppressed the material facts of her employment and income and this Court coming to the conclusion that the respondent – wife would not be entitled for maintenance, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent – wife to refund the said amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner – husband.

Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025

Citations: [2025:KHC:14149]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67eef65cd50c1c738ee6dd37

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

K.Harish Kumar Vs Vanathy Rajkumar on 24 Apr 2024

Posted on September 25, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 8,

8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha1, if there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the affidavit of disclosure, the aggrieved party shall seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party. The Court had elaborately discussed about the difficulties that the Court faces while granting interim maintenance and without material it is done on the guess work. As per the judgment of the Apex Court, they have to produce bank statements, income tax returns at least for two years prior to the application. Even if the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is taken into consideration that the bank account is a joint account, still the respondent have to disclose the statement which is two years prior to the closing date of the account and whatever is the income as per the bank statement or whatever are the details or the relevant factors, the duty is cast upon the wife to produce all these documents.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the wife to produce income tax returns, bank statements two years prior to 26.08.2019. The husband shall cooperate with the Court below in deciding the application for interim maintenance. No further adjournments shall be granted by the Court. The Court below shall stick to the same schedule as per the orders passed in WP.No.3267/2024 dated 11.03.2024.

K.Harish Kumar Vs Vanathy Rajkumar on 24 Apr 2024

Index of maintenance cases is here.

Sushmitha B.L. Vs Raghavendra B.R on 07 Jan 2025

Posted on April 7, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Karnataka High Court, refused to transfer a divorce case stating that the inconvenience that will be faced by the respondent-husband if the transfer of the case is effected will be more.

From Paras 6-8,

6. Constitutionally, a female has got equal rights as that of a male. As a matter of fact, women are the primary victims in most situations, but that does not mean that men are not affected by the cruelty of women. Therefore, there is necessity for a gender neutral society. Such a society aims at preventing separation of duties according to sex or gender. It will focus on equal treatment of men and women both in domestic affairs and work places. Equality should be in its truest sense and not at the expense of either gender. However admirable our efforts to safeguarding women may be, we should not overlook the challenges encountered by men in our society.
7. Only because the transfer petition is moved by a woman, transfer of the case as sought for cannot be effected. All the attending facts and circumstances have to be looked into.
8. This Court is of the view that the inconvenience projected by the petitioner to attend the Court at Narasimharajapura, Chikkamagaluru District will not be greater than the inconvenience that will be faced by the respondent-husband if the transfer of the case is effected. Also the tender aged children would be put to sufferance. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for cannot be granted.

Sushmitha B.L. Vs Raghavendra B.R on 07 Jan 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/677ee68875ee7076ea27c32d

Index of Transfer judgments is here.

K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024

Posted on November 8, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge (Lalitha Kanneganti) of Karnataka High Court bench at Bengaluru found out the suppression of material facts (about employment) done by wife and denied Interim Maintenance allowed by Family Court below.

From Para 5,

5. Heard the learned counsel on either sides, perused the entire material on record. This court has perused the affidavit, the affidavit do not disclose any of the reasons that are submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. This court has perused the material placed before this court and the statement of assets and liabilities that were filed on 15.11.2022. As per the letter dated 02.03.2023 given by the Integrated Project for Development of People (R ) the respondent/wife had come to them with a problem and requested them to provide an opportunity to work in a residential shelter with safety and security with survival purpose and at the same time they were opening Ashakirana Girls Hostel, for the post of Hostel Warden temporary appointment was given on 01.08.2022 with a nominal honorarium to lead her personal life and after 11th April they are closing the residential hostel due to new norms at CCI Government Rules. Even the 2nd affidavit which is filed before the court below, with suppression of material facts and looking at both the affidavits filed by respondent/wife this is a fit case where proceedings have to be initiated for perjury against her. The husbands salary is Rs.90,000/-. Both the children are grown up and pursuing their graduation are living with the father. He has lost his brother and he has to take care of education of the niece and also has to take care of mother. The respondent/wife has come to the courts with unclean hands by suppressing all the material facts. Considering all these facts, this court is of the view that the respondent/wife is not entitled for any interim maintenance and the other allegations that is levelled by the husband which are serious in nature are pending consideration before the court below. At this stage in the considered opinion of this court, the respondent/wife is not entitled for any relief.

K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is here.

H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024

Posted on October 6, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows, when a husband filed for divorce and did not pay the interim maintenance.

From Para 10,

10. This court is coming across several cases where the husband will not pay the maintenance as ordered by the court and which attains finality but he insists for proceeding with the main case. The CPC provides for execution of the orders passed by the court. No doubt there is mechanism provided for execution of the orders. In these pending matrimonial matters, when the order is passed for maintenance pendent-lite, the party who is contesting the matter cannot tell the opposite party that I will proceed with the case and you can go before the executing court for recovery of money. In matrimonial cases thousands of execution petitions are pending. In some cases the parties are not in a position to meet their basic necessities and the opposite parties inspite of not obeying the orders of the court are enjoying the further orders passed by the court. In these matrimonial proceedings, the court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC and under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC should either stay the proceedings or strike off the pleadings. This to some extent will subserve the ends of justice. It will also send a message to the concerned that they cannot get away with non-compliance of the orders of the court and deprive other party from the fruits of the order.

Tip: Pay the money and get the divorce (your freedom!)

H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024

Index of Divorce Judgments is here and Maintenance Judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification

Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026 – Judgement Summary

498A IPC: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Neighbour Under CrPC 482 (BNSS 528)

Related Legal Concepts

Mohammed Azeem Vs Sabeeha & Ors on 22 Sep 2025

Abuzar Ahmed and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 8 Jan 2026

Para 8

Para 8 (continued)

Para 9

Para 12

Para 26

Lakshmayya Vs M.Shivalingamma and Anr on 04 Mar 2024

Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025

Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025

K.Harish Kumar Vs Vanathy Rajkumar on 24 Apr 2024

Sushmitha B.L. Vs Raghavendra B.R on 07 Jan 2025

K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024

H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024