IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2567/2013 BETWEEN:
Smt. K.M. Yashodha, W/o. N.S. Prakash, Aged about 40 years, Residing at Kolalagrama, Dabbeghatta Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 227. …Petitioner (By Sri. M.N. Madhusudhan, Advocate – absent) AND:
N.S. Prakash, S/o. S. Shivanna, Aged about 42 years, Residing at Nellikere Village, Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 224. ...Respondent (By Sri. M.B. Chandra Chooda, Advocate) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 20.04.2011 in C.Misc.No.12/2007 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere and Order dated 07.01.2013 in Cr.R.P.No.34/2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Tiptur, by allowing the petition.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner herein filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court seeking maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the respondent. The said petition was registered in Crl.Misc.No.12/2007. The petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and examined one more witness as PW.2 and relied on Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. In rebuttal, the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and one more witness as RW.2. Upon hearing the parties and on considering the above materials, by order dated 20.04.2011, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish that she has been deserted by the respondent and willfully neglected to maintain her. Further, the learned Magistrate has recorded a finding that the respondent has no means to pay the maintenance claimed by the petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the Fast Tract Court at Tiptur. By order dated 07.01.2013, the Revision Petition was also dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. On going through the impugned orders, it is seen that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence on record, especially the evidence of the petitioner that ever since the date of marriage, the respondent herein was residing with the petitioner in her parents house and not independently. There is no evidence to show that any time the respondent deserted the petitioner, rather the petitioner herself refused to join the respondent.
5. In the light of the said evidence, both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact holding that there was no willful neglect by the respondent entitling her for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Even with regard to the means and capacity of the respondent to pay the amount claimed by the petitioner, both the Courts below have held that the petitioner was not dependent on the respondent for her livelihood at any point of time. These findings are based on the evidence adduced by the parties. Even otherwise the said finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not pointed out any error of jurisdiction or perversity either in the findings recorded by the trial Court or in the reasoning assigned by the Courts below rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any reason to admit the petition.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV/-