IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6819 OF 2016 Between:
Mr. Chennappa T Son of Thimmaiah, Aged About 39 Years, Residing at Poorvinilaya, Near Rotary Bhavana, Malavalli Main Road, Maddur Town, Mandya District – 571 428.
Working at Commanding Officer No. 957010322, 1st Batallion, ITBP Sunil Camp, Chamoli, Chamoli District, Joshi Mutt, Uttar Kand State.
(By Sri.Kumara K.G, Advocate) And:
1. Mrs. C. M. Uma Wife of T. Chennappa, Aged about 29 Years ...Petitioner 2. Baby Inchara Daughter of T. Chennappa, Aged about 10 Years 3. Master Vismay Son of T. Chennappa, Aged about 6 Years Respondent Nos.2 and 3 being minor, Represented by their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. C. M. Uma, Residing at Poorvinilaya, Near Rotary Bhavana, Malavalli Main Road, Maddur Town, Mandya District – 571 428.
Respondent No.1 works at Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Unit-26, Plot NO.4451, Sy No.182, 189 Gajjalagere Industrial Area, Kasaba Hobli, Gajjalagere Post, Maddur Taluk, Mandya – 571 428.
(By Sri.T.Puttaswamy, Advocate) …Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the Prl. C.J. (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C. at Maddur in C.Mis.No.111/2013 at Annexure-B herein consequently and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.2014 passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur in C.Mis.No.111/2013 and the order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.Rev.Petition.No.156/2014 dated 25.08.2016, whereby the appellate Court was pleased to affirm the order passed by the trial Court on an application preferred under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
3. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the wife and children of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order allowing the application and awarding a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance in respect of respondent No.1 and a sum of Rs.3,000/- each per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3. There is no dispute with regard to the occupation of the petitioner. It is fairly admitted that the petitioner is employed as Cook in Border Security Force. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been taking care of the needs of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that the award of maintenance in respect of respondent No.1 is unsustainable, in view of the fact that the respondent No.1 is gainfully employed and would place before the Court a copy of the salary certificate said to have been issued by one Shahi Exports Private Limited.
4. On perusal of the same, it is seen that respondent No.1 is being paid a net salary of Rs.7078.90 only. The earnings of the petitioner is not denied. Even assuming that the documents placed before the Court is correct, in the opinion of this Court, the maintenance awarded is just and reasonable compared to the present cost of living. It is also not in dispute that the children – respondent Nos.2 and 3 are in the care and custody of respondent No.1 only.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not merit any further consideration. The petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed without being admitted.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-