IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4556/2015 BETWEEN:
CHANDPASHA S/O SYED GAFER SAB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT ISLAMPURA KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.R. ANANTHA MURTHY, ADV. - ABSENT) AND:
1. MAHABOOB JAN W/O. CHAND PASHA MAJOR 2. MASTER SHAHAJAD S/O. CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 3. KUMARI SHAJIYA D/O CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS.
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. MABOOBJAN.
ALL ARE R/AT NO.3, 2ND MAIN K.H. LAYOUT NEAR NIRANJAN APARTMENT B.T.M. LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 029. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AHMED S.N., ADV.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2014 IN DISMISSING THE CRL.RP. AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2014 BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NELAMANGALA IN CRL.MISC.NO.5/2011 AND DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CRL.MISC.NO.5/2011.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records and the grounds urged in the petition.
2. The first respondent herein filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and on behalf of her two minor children namely respondents 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month on the ground that the petitioner herein has intentionally deserted the respondents and failed to look after them and also failed to provide maintenance to them despite having sufficient means.
3. Before the trial Court, the first respondent examined herself and also adduced the evidence of another witness on behalf of her. The petitioner got himself examined as R.W.1. Considering the said evidence, materials and documents produced by the petitioner, the trial Court by order dated 15.3.2014 directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to each of the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.22/2014 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural Disrict, Bengaluru and by order dated 15.11.2014 the revision petition has been dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. The only ground urged in the petition is that on 27.10.2014, the respondents received Rs.16 lakhs altogether from the petitioner herein to release their rights in respect of one property sold in favour of Sairam Enterprises. The said amount was paid in full and final settlement, but after receipt of the amount, the respondent has failed to appear before the Court for filing withdrawal memo/joint memo to that effect.
5. The aforesaid payment, even if made by the petitioner cannot be considered as the amount paid in satisfaction of the order passed against him for payment of maintenance. If the first respondent has received the said amount in full and final settlement of all claims towards maintenance, the same could be agitated before the Executing Court at the appropriate stage. On the said ground, the orders passed by the Courts below cannot be interfered with. There is no merit in the petition.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.