Karnataka HC directs BJP leader's son accused of rape on promise of marriage to pay ₹75k a month to victim

The Karnataka High Court recently directed rape accused Krishna Rao, son of BJP leader and Puttur Municipal Council member PG Jagannivas Rao, to deposit ₹75,000 to the victim and her 10-month-old child within a week. [Krishna J Rao v. State of Karnataka]

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed while hearing the case,

"The complainant who is 22 years of age has now become a mother. A girl who had to see opportunities in life, is now seeing a maternal life."

Advocate Frances Xavier, appearing for the complainant, informed the Court of the financial situation of the victim's family, saying that her father was a daily wage employee and her mother was part of housekeeping staff.

Considering the financial situation of the victim's family and the circumstances of the victim having been in love with Rao, the Court agreed to stay the proceedings if a monthly maintenance was paid to the victim and the child.

"If it were to be only a consensual act between the two and the consensual acts had not gone to the extent of a baby being born, which is now close to 10 months, and the mother and the baby being left in the lurch, this Court would have stayed the matter in its entirety. The circumstance is different - the parents of the victim, who are not in position to take care of the child, the child and the mother today are left in the lurch for the acts of the petitioner...There shall be an interim order of stay on further proceedings subject to the condition that the petitioner by himself or through his parents pay the victim and the child to take care of the child ₹50,000 per month till the next date of hearing."

When Hegde asked that the monthly maintenance be reduced, the Court instead increased the amount.

"No sir, you are the father. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the biological father of the child that is now born and the tests have revealed that he is the father. Therefore, leave 50, make it ₹75,000 month on month till the disposal of the petition. This is the only way that the family of the victim who is now left in the lurch that the order is passed until the disposal of the petition."

When the argument of the consensual relationship was reiterated, the Court observed,

"When a child who has to see the future at 20 years becomes pregnant and gives birth to a baby, you do not know the difficulties that they face? You have killed the girl's future completely. What does she do now? Take care of the child or take care of her future? Whatever it is, just because she comes from a poor family, you can't do this...What consensual?...Should I make it ₹1,00,000? You get into the shoes of the victim, who has a child today, you tell me if the order is correct or no..."

The Court also directed that the victim, her parents and relatives to undertake that they will not approach the press until the matter is decided.

"The first of the ₹75000/- shall be paid in the next one week to the victim. On the same date month on month, the amount shall be deposited for the care of the child and the mother."

The next hearing is scheduled for June 5.

Senior Advocate PP Hegde appeared for Rao.

Additional Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha represented the State.

Rao and the victim (currently 22 years old) were school classmates who fell in love in 9th standard. On the promise of marriage, Rao had physical relations with her. After the victim became pregnant, the promise to marry was not honoured.

He was arrested in July 2025 after the victim filed a complaint. His father was also booked for helping his son evade arrest.

Rao then moved the High Court to quash the case, contending that the act would not constitute rape as they were in love and had a consensual relationship.