IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.137/2019 Between:
H.S.Vijay Kumar S/o H.T.Siddaramanna Aged about 45 years R/at Tippeswamy Nilaya Govt. Hospital Road Hiriyuru Town Chitradurga District – 577 657. … Petitioner (By Sri. B. Lethif, Advocate) And:
Smt. Deepika @ Jyothi W/o H.S.Vijay Kumar Aged about 43 years R/at Hiriyuru Town Now residing at Gattihosalli Talya Hobli, Holalkere Taluk Chitradurga District – 577 658. … Respondent (By Sri. Rudrappa P., Advocate) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the order dated 12.10.2018 in Crl.A.No.40/2018 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga and order dated 07.04.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.147/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hiriyur.
This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband challenging the judgment passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.A.No.40/2018 dated 12.10.2018.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife remained absent.
3. Though this case is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, the same is taken up for final disposal.
4. The factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. They got married on 08.07.2012. The respondent had given gold and silver articles as dowry at the time of marriage and thereafter, they begotten female child on 15.07.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner/husband started abusing, assaulting, started ill-treating and harassing. The relationship was not cordial and as such, she started residing in her parents house. It is the further contention that the respondent does not have any other source of income to lead her life. The petitioner is having movable properties and earns Rs.80,000/- per month. She requires Rs.20,000/- per month for maintenance of her child and herself. As such, the petition came to be filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’ for short).
5. The respondent filed an interim application for interim maintenance. The trial Court after considering the factual situations granted Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance, the same was challenged by the petitioner/husband before the I Appellate Court and the same was confirmed there also. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Courts below, the petitioner/husband is before this Court. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband is that the application is belated and there are no good grounds to entertain the petition without there being any material witnesses. It is further contended that the respondent/wife herself deserted during the year 2015, started residing in her parents house and as such, there was no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. It is his further submission that the petitioner is working as a coolie and without there being any documents to substantiate the income, the trial Court as well as the I Appellate Court have erroneously passed the order of interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. It is further submitted that the matter is to be heard on merits and the maintenance is on the higher side. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and set aside the impugned order.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, the respondent has given birth to a female child. The petition came to be filed under Section 12 of the Act for various reliefs and the application was filed for claiming interim maintenance. Whether there exists domestic relationship or living separately, is a matter to be decided only at the time of trial. At this premature stage, without there being any material evidence, this Court cannot decide whether there exists any domestic relationship or not. However, the petitioner/husband admits the fact that the respondent is his wife and they have begotten a female child, the duty cast upon him to maintain the respondent/wife and his child is his legal obligation. By going through the order of the trial Court as well as the judgment of the I Appellate Court, no documents have been produced to substantiate the income of the petitioner/husband. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that he is a coolie worker and he is not having sufficient income.
8. However, taking into consideration of the standard of living of an individual and other aspects, I feel that if an amount of Rs.3,500/- is fixed as a interim monthly maintenance for respondent/wife and her child, then under such circumstances, it is going to meet the ends of justice. Anyhow, it is not the final order, the trial Court can determine proper maintenance if the respondent and her child deserves.
9. By keeping open the point, the petition is partly allowed and the judgment of I Appellate Court as well as the order of trial Court is modified as indicated above. The petitioner/husband is directed to pay an interim monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- regularly.
In view of disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE NR/-