IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4743/2015 BETWEEN:
Mahabala Shetty, S/o. Vittal Rai, Aged 59 years, R/at Mottethadka House, Kemminje Village, Darbe Post, Puttur Taluk, D.K.District – 574 203. ... Petitioner (By Sri. G. Ravishankar Shastry, Advocate) AND:
Smt. Vijaya, W/o. Mahabala Shetty, Aged about 55 years, R/at Mottethadka House, Kemminje Village, Darbe Post, Puttur Taluk, D.K. District – 575 003. ... Respondent (By Sri. Ajay Prabhu M., Advocate for Sri. B.S. Sachin, Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 15.04.2015 in Crl.R.P.No.5003/2014 passed by the Court of the V Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, sitting at Puttur, D.K., and also the order dated 24.06.2014 in M.C.No.156/2005 passed by the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner is before this Court against the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of filing of the petition till May 2014 and at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of the order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has not determined the actual income of the petitioner. The records indicate that the petitioner himself was driven out of the house by respondent/wife and she has been residing in the house allotted to the petitioner under Ashraya Scheme. There being no clear evidence as to the fact that the petitioner deserted the respondent/wife and neglected to maintain her, the orders passed by the Courts below suffer from patent error and illegality warranting interference by this Court.
3. Refuting the above submissions, the learned counsel for respondent would submit that the document produced before the Court at Ex.C1 discloses that petitioner has been residing with another women during the subsistence of his marriage with respondent. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he has been driven out of the matrimonial house is contrary to true facts. With regard to the income of the petitioner, there is clear admission in the evidence of RW1 that he was going for work as driver and therefore, there is sufficient material before the Court to determine the income; hence, there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings passed by the Courts below.
4. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
5. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Respondent/wife presented the petition on the specific allegations that petitioner deserted her and set up a separate home. In proof of this assertion, Ration Card at Ex.C1 was produced before the Court, which indicates that the petitioner has been residing separately. In the said circumstance, respondent/wife was justified in invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and seeking maintenance from the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been looking after and maintaining the respondent/wife. The records indicate that respondent/wife has no source of income. On the other hand, material on record discloses that the petitioner is a Driver by profession. Ex.P22 is a document relating to insurance, which stands in the name of the petitioner, which goes to show that petitioner is owning an auto. In the said circumstance, petitioner having concealed his actual income, the learned Magistrate was justified in determining the maintenance based on the evidence brought on record.
Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, do not warrant interference by this Court.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE sv