IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8127/2013 Between:
Mr.G.R.Lakshmikantha, S/o G.M.Rangappa, Aged about 40 years, Permanent resident of Indiranagar, Huliyar Town, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District, Presently residing at, No.314/140, 3rd Cross, Ramagondanahalli, Near Nagarjuna College, Yelahanka, Singanayakanahalli, Bengaluru – 560 064. … Petitioner (By Sri.Muhammad Shamil, Advocate for Sri.P.B.Ajit, Advocate) And:
1. Mrs.Mamatha, W/o G.R. Lakshmikantha, Aged about 34 years, 2. Master Charan, S/o G.R. Lakshmikantha, Aged about 15 years, 3. Ku. Bhumika, D/o G.R. Lakshmikantha, Aged about 10 years, Since respondent Nos.2 to 3 are minors, Represented by their mother and Natural guardian, Mrs.Mamatha All are residing at Thoresuraganahalli Road, Huliyar Town, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District – 572214. ...Respondents (Notice to respondents are served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 31.10.2013 in Crl.RP.No.127/2013 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur and the order dated 01.08.2012 in Crl.Misc.No.226/2011 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli and etc., This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Muhammad Shamil, Advocate on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Respondents are served and unrepresented. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 sought maintenance from the petitioner for herself and for her minor children under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanalli, by order dated 01.08.2012 in Crl.Misc.No.226/2011, directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each per month to the respondents from the date of petition. The said order was carried in revision by the petitioner and the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur by order dated 31.10.2013 in Crl.R.P.No.127/2013, has confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
3. The petitioner has not raised any grounds warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The only ground urged in the petition is that the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the circumstances that prevented the petitioner from making payments. The circumstances which prevented the petitioner from paying the amount of maintenance determined by the trial Court cannot be a reason to upset the findings recorded by the trial Court.
4. The impugned order reveals that the trial Court has recorded a factual finding that the petitioner has refused to maintain the respondents. The Courts below have also considered the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties regarding the means and capacity of the petitioner and have determined the maintenance payable to the respondents. I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the findings of the facts recorded by the Courts below.
For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE NBM