IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 641/2018 BETWEEN Mr. Mohammed Adil Akram Aged 32 years Son of Mohammed Akram Residing at: Fathima Apartment Flat No.301, Brito Lane Falnir, Mangaluru D.K.-575 002.
(By Sri. Venkatesh Somareddi, Advocate for Sri P. P. Hegde, Advocate) ... Petitioner AND Mrs. Almas Aged 26 years D/o Sardar Mohammed Shaffi Residing at Honnala Honnala Post Brahmavara, Udupi Taluk And District – 576213.
(By Sri. Rajendra .S, Advocate) ... Respondent This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Uudpi in Crl.Misc.No.9/2017 on application filed under Section 23(2) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi in Crl.A.No.49/2017 confirming the order of the trial court in Crl.Misc.No.9/2017.
This Criminal Revision Petition Coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent are present.
Mrs.Almas, the respondent herein had filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against one Mohammad Adil Akram and Dilshad Akram said to be her husband and mother-in-law respectively in Crl.Misc.No.9/2017 before the Court of I Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi seeking certain directions against the first respondent. She had also filed an application under Section 23(2) of the Act seeking interim relief of monthly maintenance. The court below vide order dated 26.08.2017 allowed the application in part and directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. to her from 06.01.2017 until further orders. The said order came to be challenged before the Court of Prl.Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi in Crl.A.No.49/2017. The Appellate Court vide order dated 24.01.2018 dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present criminal revision petition is filed.
Sri Rajendra.S., learned counsel for the respondent submits that the main petition in Crl.Misc.No.9/2017 has been disposed of by the Court below vide order dated 29.01.2019 and therefore, the present criminal revision petition does not survive for consideration.
The submission is placed on record. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
In view of dismissal of main petition, I.A.2/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration. Consequently, the same is dismissed.
DKB Sd/- JUDGE