Karnataka HC Addresses Allegations Against BJP Leader’s Son
The Karnataka High Court recently expressed strong disapproval towards Krishna J Rao, the son of a BJP leader, for his failure to comply with a previous court directive involving the maintenance of a woman and her child. The accusations against Rao involve allegations of rape under the pretense of marriage. This case, Krishna J Rao Vs State of Karnataka, was presided over by Justice M Nagaprasanna.
Court’s Firm Stance on Maintenance Order
In a prior order dated April 26, the court mandated that Rao deposit ₹75,000 for the upkeep of the victim and her 10-month-old child. Justice Nagaprasanna reproached Rao for not fulfilling this condition, emphasizing the importance of responsibility regardless of one’s social status. The judge sternly remarked, “Just because the child is from the lower strata of society, are you abandoning the child? We will not permit.”
Defense’s Argument for Non-Compliance
Senior Counsel PP Hegde, representing Rao, argued that as a student, Rao was unable to meet the financial requirement stipulated in the interim order. Despite this, the court highlighted the need for Rao’s father to step in, questioning, “₹75,000 you are not able to pay? Your father is there. If it is not paid, I will dismiss the petitions.”
Further Observations and Court’s Determination
The complainant’s counsel noted that the victim’s bank account information had been shared with Rao’s attorney, yet the payment had not been made to the victim’s account. The first installment was reportedly deposited with the court on May 5, but this was not communicated to the victim.
Justice Nagaprasanna criticized the petitioners’ actions, stating, “Because of your consensual acts, an innocent life is born. That innocent child is now left in the lurch without any means to survive. How are you washing away your hands?”
More Read
Decision on Petitions and Next Steps
The court indicated that the petitions would not be allowed to be withdrawn and were likely to be dismissed, citing the applicability of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) concerning false promises of marriage. The judge remarked, “Both the petitions will definitely stand dismissed. I am not permitting anything to be withdrawn.”
While dismissing the petitions, the court allowed the petitioners to argue the case on its merits, stating, “You make submissions on merits. I am going to answer it on merits. Herculean efforts you can make. That money has been deposited, we will see.” The case was adjourned for further proceedings.
