‘Unique problem, unique order’: Karnataka High Court directs BJP leader’s son to pay Rs 75,000 monthly maintenance to former school friend

The bench, thereafter, orally remarked, “Unique problem, unique order.”

The 22-year-old accused has approached the court seeking to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings pending against him for the offences under Section 64 (2) (M) (punishment for rape) and Section 69 (rape on false promise of marriage) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The victim filed the complaint in 2025, after the accused allegedly refused to marry her and take care of the child.

Appearing for the accused, Senior Advocate P P Hegde argued that consensual acts between people who were in love would not become an offence. Countering the same, Advocate Francis Xavier, appearing for the victim, said the victim has now become a mother, and her parents are daily wage earners.

The bench said, “As a one of solution to a one of problem that is projected before the court. If it would have been only a consensual act between the two and the consensual acts would not have gone to the extent of the baby being born, which is close to 10 months old and the mother and the baby not being left lurch, this court would have stayed the matter in its entirety. But the circumstance is different, the parents of the victim who are not in the position of taking care of the child and the child and the mother are today left in lurch for the acts of the petitioner.”

The court further said, “The petitioner may be a student but in the light of them being left in the lurch the circumstance for the present should be stalled only on conditions. There shall be an interim order of stay subject to condition that the petitioner by himself or through his parents pay the victim and the child to take care of the child and the needs of the child Rs 75,000 per month till the next date of hearing.” The court directed the accused to pay this month’s amount within a week.

Posting the matter for further hearing on June 5, the bench observed, “You (petitioner) have completely destroyed her future, what does she do now, take care of the child or take care of her future. Just because she comes from a poor family you cannot do this.”

The court also directed the victim, her parents, and relatives to observe restraint and not approach the media when the case is sub judice.