IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1041/2016 Between:
1. Dr. Arvind Rao H.T. Aged about 37 years S/o. Late H.T.Jayaram Rao Residing at Flat No.201, Inland Enclave Near Central Warehouse Mannagudda, Mangaluru.
2. Smt. H.T. Srimathi Rao Aged about 66 years W/o. Late H.T.Jayaram Rao Residing near P.V.S. Building 8th Cross, M.G.Road, Kodialbail Mangaluru – 3. … Petitioners (By Sri S.G.Bhagavan, Advocate for Petitioner No.1) And:
1. Dr. Kumuda Arvind Rao H.T. Aged about 37 years W/o. Dr. Arvind Rao H.T.
D/o. B. Ganapathi Shanbhogue Residing at “Shree Mahalasa”
Hari Nagar, Opp: Jumadikatte Road Gandibail, Udupi – 576 102.
2. Master Athrey Aged about 11 years S/o. Dr. Arvind Rao H.T.
Minor - represented by his mother And natural guardian respondent No.1. … Respondents (By Sri Daliya Singh, Advocate for Sri K.G.Kamath, Adv.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 CR.P.C. praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated 19.05.2014 passed by the JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru in M.C.No.60/2014 and the order dated 22.04.2016 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in Crl.A.NO.137/2014 insofar as confirming the order of the trial Court dated 19.05.2014 in M.C.No.60/2014.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 19.05.2014 passed in M.C.No.60/2014 on the file of the JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru and the order dated 22.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.137/2014 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru, insofar as confirming the order passed by the trial Court dated 19.05.2014.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The respondents are the wife and minor son of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 is the mother of petitioner No.1. A petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to an ‘Act’ for brevity) was filed by the respondents herein, seeking certain reliefs against the petitioners herein. An interim application under Section 23(2) of the Act was filed by the respondents. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 19.05.2014 was pleased to direct petitioner No.1 herein not to commit any domestic violence against the respondents herein and further ordered to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- each to the respondents, wife and minor son, from the date of petition till further orders of the Court. Further, directed to provide them same level of alternate accommodation and restrained the petitioner/husband from taking respondent No.2 herein into his custody illegally, forcibly and unauthorizidely from the custody of petitioner No.1 and also in any way meeting and disturbing him in the school where he is studying. It was further directed to handover to the respondents herein all the belongings, mentioned in the application filed under Section 23(2) of the Act.
3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.137/2014. Learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 22.04.2016 was pleased to partly allow the said appeal filed under Section 29 of the Act and set aside the order passed by the trial Court insofar as paying monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to respondent No.1 herein. However, confirmed the order passed by the trial Court directing payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to respondent No.2 herein. The other part of the order passed by the trial Court was also confirmed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on both sides submit that the main case in M.C.No.60/2014 is pending before the Court of JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District and it is at the stage of evidence. It is also submitted that petitioner No.1 herein paying monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to respondent No.2 as directed and there is no arrears of payment and therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate which has been confirmed by the Sessions Court is being complied. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Revision Petition directing the trial Court to conclude the main case in M.C.No.60/2014 as expeditiously as possible and the learned Magistrate shall conclude the said case within a period of six months from today. If the order passed by the Courts below are not being complied by the petitioners herein, it is for the respondents to take such course as permissible under law. Both the parties are directed to co-operate.
Accordingly, the Revision Petition is disposed of. I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration, the same is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KA