IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2314 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
CHANDRAMOHAN.K @ RAJU S/O K THEJENDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NEAR VINAYAKA BAKERY RAYASANDRA, HUSKUR POST BANGALORE-560099 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: C BABU, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND:
1. SMT.INDIRA @ INDU W/O K CHANDRA MOHAN AGED ABOUT 29 YERS 2. MASTER SAI PRERANA @ PREMSAGAR S/O K CHANDRAMOHAN AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS 2ND RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER FIRST REPSONDENT BOTH ARE R/O BEHIND CAUVERY SAW MILL KEMPANAHALLI CHIKMAGALUR-577101 (BY SRI: M C JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE ) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY II ADDL.DIST. AND S.J., AT CHIKMAGALUR IN CRL.RP.NO.248/13 DATED:9.12.13 AND II ADDL.C.J. AND JMFC, CHIKMAGALUR IN CRL.MISC.NO.451/11 DATED:21.3.12.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has sought to set-aside the order passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Crl.R.P.No.248/2013 dated 09.12.2013 and the order dated 21.03.2012 in Crl.Misc.No.451/2011 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikmagalur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the petition and the ground urged therein.
2. The respondents herein filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming a maintenance of Rs.30,000/- for herself and her minor son viz., respondent No.2. Before the Magistrate, the second respondent examined herself as PW-1 and produced six documents and in rebuttal, the petitioner herein (husband) examined himself as DW-1. Considering the said evidence, by order dated 21.03.2013 in Crl.Misc.No.451/2011, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred Crl.R.P.No.248/2013 and by order dated 9.12.2013, the learned II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, modified the order and consequently directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the first petitioner from the date of the petition till her life time and Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the second respondent from the date of petition till he attains majority.
3. The only ground on which the petitioner has sought to set aside the impugned order is that the revisional Court without taking into consideration the salary of the petitioner has awarded the above maintenance, which calls for interference by this Court.
4. On going through the impugned order, it is noticed that, in her evidence, respondent No.1 took up a specific plea that the petitioner herein is an MBA Graduate and working in a software Company and drawing a salary of Rs.84,000/-p.m. Though she failed to produce any documents in proof of salary income of the petitioner, yet, the petitioner also failed to produce any proof of his salary income. What is important to be noted is that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that he was an employee in the Software company. In his cross-examination, he had admitted that he is possessing pass book of State Bank of Mysore. He has failed to produce even the said document to show that he was not drawing any salary income, as such, the testimony of PW.1 with regard to the quantum of salary drawn by the petitioner has remained uncontroverted. In the said circumstances, the petitioner having suppressed the actual income derived by him, cannot contend that the courts below have failed to determine the actual salary drawn by him. The petitioner has not taken up any plea that he is not in a position to earn a decent salary or that he is not able to maintain the respondents. In the said circumstances, the courts below were justified in awarding the maintenance as stated above and I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned direction issued by the courts below. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2014 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-