IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Criminal Petition No.2 of 2016 BETWEEN:
BASAPPA @ CHANDRAPPA S/O CHAMEGOWDARA KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE, SILUNERE HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT (BY SRI. K. N. NITISH, ADV.) AND 1. SMT SUDHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HOOVINAHALLI VILLAGE, ... PETITIONER HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573210 2. MEGHANA D/O SMT SUDHA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT SUDHA, HOOVINAHALLI VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT-573210 ... RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., AT HASSAN ON 13.10.2015 IN CRL.R.P.NO.236/2013 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA DATED 30.09.2013 IN CRL.MISC.NO.407/2010 AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSIN THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1. She filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner for herself and for her minor child on the ground that the petitioner intentionally neglected and refused to maintain them.
2. Before the trial Court, respondent No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and examined two other witnesses in proof of the fact that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. In addition to the marriage photo, she produced school documents and the birth certificate of the minor child. In rebuttal, petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and relied on Ex.D1 to D10, namely the certified copies of the RTC and the proceedings in O.S.No.68/2006. Considering these materials, the trial Court recorded a positive finding with regard to the marital status between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and awarded maintenance of Rs.750/- p.m. to each of the respondents. The petitioner challenged the said order before the revisional Court and by order dated 13.10.2015 in Crl.Rev.Petition No.236/2013, the revisional Court while confirming the findings recorded by the trial Court on the relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, enhanced the maintenance to Rs.1,000/- p.m. to each of the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the materials produced by the respondents do not establish the relationship between petitioner and the respondents and in this regard both the courts have committed error of fact in awarding maintenance to the petitioner. He further contends that respondents did not prefer any revision against the order passed by the trial Court, and therefore the revisional Court was justified in ordering enhancement of maintenance, that too without any evidence in that regard.
4. Both the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, cannot be sustained. Needless to say that strict proof of marriage is not required in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The documents produced by respondent No.1, namely marriage photo, school documents and the birth certificate of respondent No.2, establish the matrimonial relationship between respondent No.1 and the petitioner, as well as the birth of respondent No.2. Both courts having recorded concurrent findings of fact based on the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding with regard to the enhancement of maintenance is concerned, it is necessary to note that the petition before the trial Court was filed by the respondents in the year 2010. The trial Court has considered the RTC produced by the respondents at Ex.P6 as well as the proceedings in O.S.No.68/2006 and having considered the resources of the petitioner, had determined the maintenance. But the said maintenance being too meager, having regard to the long lapse of time and the increasing cost of living for the minor child over the years, the revisional Court found it necessary to enhance the maintenance marginally by increasing it from Rs.750/- to Rs.1,000/- per month. Having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, even the said direction does not warrant interference as it is intended to secure the ends of justice. Hence I do not find any merit in this petition. As a result, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Judge RD