IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.455 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. SMT.ANITHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O SRI GOPI.
2. KUM.MANOGNA G, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, D/O SRI GOPI.
3. MASTER.CHANDAN GOWDA G, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, S/O SRI GOPI.
ALL RESIDING AT NO.88, 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS, ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064.
REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.1. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.R.D.PANCHAM, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI GOPI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O SRI RAMAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.88, 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS, ATTUR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI ANAND KUMAR Y.D, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.S.SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) **** THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.03.2018 PASSED BY LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.286/2017 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN CRL.MISC.NO.202/2015 ON THE FILE OF M.M.T.C – VI, BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT REVISION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 02.03.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.286/2017 by the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
2. Though this case is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final hearing.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Before going to consider the submissions, I feel it just and proper to briefly state the case of the petitioners before the Court below.
5. The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children born out of the said wedlock. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that she has been subjected to domestic violence by ill-treatment and harassment. It is her further contention that, at the time of marriage, the respondent was paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-, gold ornaments, gold chain, gold necklace, gold ring, etc., as dowry, and thereafter, she led marital life. But, subsequently, she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the respondent. It is further contended that, the respondent is addicted to bad vices and used to ill-treat and harass the petitioners.
6. In that light of the matter, a petition was filed and the Court below after considering the factual matrix of the case, allowed I.A. No.1 filed under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) and the respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the petitioners.
7. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal by modifying the order of the trial Court. He reduced the maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,250/- per month to each of the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners, i.e., wife and children are before this Court.
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the learned Appellate Judge without considering the factual matrix of the case and without assigning any proper reasons, has come to a wrong conclusion and has reduced the maintenance granted to
applicable to the present facts of the case on hand and wrongly referring to the said case, the Appellate Court has reduced the maintenance. It is his further submission that, the trial Court after considering the fact that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children born out of the wedlock between petitioner No.1 and respondent and by considering the source of income, present financial status, cost of essential commodities and other things, has rightly granted the interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the petitioners. It is his further submission that, the respondent is having sufficient income and there are no good grounds to reduce the maintenance granted by the trial Court. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to enhance the maintenance granted by the first Appellate Court.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband vehemently argued and submitted that the respondent is working as a Vehicle Attender in Oriental English High School and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-. It is his further submission that, the respondent has to maintain his old aged parents and dependants and with the said meager income, it is impossible for him to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the petitioners. It is his further submission that, already a house has been given to the petitioner No.1 – wife and he is ready to maintain them and he has already paid maintenance of Rs.1,250/- fixed by the Appellate Court. It is his further submission that, the said order is an exparte order and the matter is likely to be settled before the Court below. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
10. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
11. Though several grounds have been urged by both the parties before this Court, the only question which remains for consideration of this Court is what will be the quantum of interim maintenance each of the petitioners are entitled to?
12. On going through the records, the relationship of the petitioners and respondent is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the trial Court after considering the application, has granted Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to each of the petitioners. Even as could be seen from the judgment of the first Appellate Court therein a representation has been made by the respondent that he is ready to pay maintenance of Rs.1,250/- per month to each of the petitioners.
13. Under the said facts and circumstances, by keeping open the other points which have been raised, I am of the considered opinion that if the maintenance granted by the first Appellate Court, if it is enhanced from Rs.1,250/- to Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the petitioners, it is going to meet the ends of justice, that too, by taking into consideration the price index existing as on today and the standard of living. As the petitioner No.2 is aged about 14 years and petitioner No.3 is aged about 9 years, the respondent - husband has to take care of their upliftment including educational and other expenses. In that light of the matter, the above said amount appears to be just and proper.
14. If the house is given as contended by the respondent – husband and if the matter is likely to be settled amicably, it is left open to the respondent and he can settle the matter, if the parties are agreeing for the same.
15. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the judgment dated 02.03.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.286/2017 by the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is modified and the respondent – husband is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the petitioners from the date of the application.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2018 dies not survive for consideration and the same is disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ