IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CRIMINAL RP NO.55 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
D BASAVARAJAPPA S/O MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O KEREGUDIHALLI VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 201.
(BY SRIYUTHS JAYANTH RANGANNA FOR S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. LALITHAMMA W/O D. BASAVARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. D. MEGHARAJA S/O D.BASAVARAJAPPA AGED 13 YEARS ….PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. 1ST RESPONDENT BOTH ARE R/AT 1ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM, CHITRADURGA. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA IN CRL. MISC. NO.682 OF 2015, GRANTING INTERIM MAINTAINANCE OF Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- EACH TO THE RESPONDENTS) AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 29.5.2018 PASSED BY THE SPL. 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL. APPEAL. No. 11 OF 2017.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Aggrieved by the order dated 29.5.2018 passed by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal. No. 11 of 2017 confirming the order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.682 of 2015, granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. (Rs.5,000/- p.m. to each of the respondents), the husband has filed this revision petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are :
The revision petitioner herein is the husband. Respondents 1 and 2 are his wife and son respectively.
The marriage between the revision petitioner and respondent No.1 took place on 29.5.2002 as per Hindu customs and rites and they have led married life for about 2 to 3 years. It is alleged that respondent No.1-wife was always quarrelling with the petitioner and she used to pick up petty quarrels over trivial issues and was not taking care of the petitioner and his parents. She has not led peaceful matrimonial life with the petitioner. When the petitioner and elders advised respondent No.1 to lead peaceful and harmonious family life, she left her matrimonial home without informing the petitioner in the year 2005. Efforts of the petitioner to bring her back to the house went in vain.
In the meanwhile, respondent No1. filed a complaint on 22.12.2014 before the Arasikere police station which came to be registered as Crime No.197 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 and 498A of IPC. Thereafter, she has filed a petition under Section 12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act before the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) and JMFC, Chitradurga in Criminal Misc.669/2012 and the same was dismissed. Again respondent No.1 filed similar application in Criminal Misc.No.682/2015 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga. The learned Magistrate by order dt.4.2.2017 passed an order directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.5,000/-
p.m. to each of the respondents from the date of the application till the disposal of the petition. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed Criminal Appeal No.11/17 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The Appellate Court after considering the entire material on record, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.5.2018. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2017 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.682/2015 granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-p.m. i.e. Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to each of the respondents and also the order dated 29.5.2018 passed by the II District and Sessions Judge Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal No.11/17, confirming grant of interim maintenance, has filed this revision petition.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Relationship of the revision petitioner and respondents are not disputed. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 left the house of the petitioner without informing him in the year 2005. But the petitioner has not produced any material to substantiate his contention regarding any efforts being made by him to bring back the respondents to his house. Further he has not filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In view of the aforesaid facts, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
5. Though it is stated by the petitioner that respondent No.1 has left the matrimonial house of the petitioner and the respondents are residing separately since from the year 2005, he has not made any arrangement for maintenance of the respondents since 2005 till passing of the order by the trial Court. The petitioner has also not produced any records to show that respondent No.1 has got capacity to earn. Respondent No.2, being the son of the petitioner, is studying in 10th standard at present and the petitioner has borne the educational expenses of respondent No.2. It is respondent No.1 who is managing the educational expenses, food and shelter of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 has produced the fee receipt issued by the school authorities to show that she has paid school fee of respondent No.1.
6. Further the petitioner has not disputed that respondent No.1 is residing in a rented house. The petitioner being the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 is legally bound to maintain the respondents.
7. The trial Court before awarding interim maintenance to the respondents, sought report from the Revenue Inspector to ascertain the income of the petitioner. It was brought to the notice of the trial Court that the petitioner in addition to doing agriculture and animal husbandry, is also doing business etc. The said fact has not been denied by the petitioner. So the trial Court considering the material on record has rightly passed an order awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/-p.m. each to respondents Nos.1 and 2 as interim maintenance. The impugned award by the trial Court is an interim maintenance and the petitioner has got the capacity to pay the amount.
8. The Appellate Court after re-appreciation of material on record has affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The amount awarded towards interim maintenance is just and proper.
Hence, the revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs