IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2576 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA S/O. GADIGEAPPA SANYASARAMANE AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. KENCHINAKOPPA VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577217 …PETITIONER (BY SHRI S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SAVITHA @ KAVITHA W/O. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 2. VEDAMURTHY S/O. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND NATURAL MOTHER – RESPONDENT NO.1 R/O. TADAKANAHALLI VILLAGE HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT - 581110 … RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANGERE IN CRL.R.P.NO.100/2015 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2015 IN CRL.MISC.NO.355/2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has taken exception to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.100/2015 dismissing the revision petition filed against order dated 02.11.2015 passed in Crl.Misc.No.355/2014.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are petitioner’s wife and son respectively. The learned Magistrate has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- each in all Rs.6,000/- to respondents as maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
3. Shri S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate is disproportionately high when compared to the earning capacity of the petitioner.
4. I have carefully considered the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the records.
5. In paragraph No.30 of the order, learned Magistrate has recorded cogent reasons for awarding the maintenance at Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondents. Learned Sessions Judge on reconsideration of the matter has recorded in paragraph No.18 of his order that petitioner has admitted in evidence that he grows onion and he gets income of Rs.2,00,000/-.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Magistrate confirmed by learned Sessions judge does not call for any interference.
Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ