IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1926 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
N. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. LATE N. LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O. GURUVADERAHALLI VILLAGE MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT – 572 101 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. HABEEB ULLA KHAN, T.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
Y.G. SOWBHAGYAMMA W/O. N. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O. MANJULA D.NO.19, ‘PRERANA’, BESIDE R.R. RESIDENCY NEW EXTENSION, HEGGERE, S.S.M.C. POST, TUMKUR – 572 101 ….RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CRL. RP. NO.160/2012 AT ANNEXURE-A ON ORDER DATED 10.01.2014 AND UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU IN CRL. MISC. NO.226/2009 AT ANNEXURE-B ON ORDER DATED 04.07.2012.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Respondent herein had filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son S. Shashikumar seeking Rs.6,000/- each.
2. Learned Magistrate, after recording oral evidence of petitioner and her witnesses and considering the documents marked at Exhibits.P1 to P10, by order dated 4.7.2012 allowed the petition in part and awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first petitioner only payable from the date of order. Said order came to be challenged by petitioners in Crl. RP. No.160/2012 seeking enhancement of maintenance. Revisional Court after securing records from the trial court and after hearing oral arguments advanced by the respective learned Advocates, by order dated 10.01.2014 allowed the criminal revision petition and modified the order dated 4.7.2012 passed in Crl. Misc. No.226/2009 by directing the respondent therein to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to first petitioner from date of petition and Rs.3,000/- per month to the second petitioner from date of petition till he attains majority. It is this order which has been challenged by respondent- husband in the present petition.
3. It has been urged by the petitioner that order passed by the Revisional Court is without judicial application of mind and learned Sessions Judge has not analyzed facts and particularly, objections filed by husband, namely, petitioner herein. Hence, petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order passed by Revisional Court and restoring the order passed by trial Court.
4. As could be seen from the order passed by revisional court, learned Sessions Judge has in extenso dealt with evidence tendered by petitioner/wife and has taken into consideration that she is physically challenged viz., on account of her disability to right hand she not in a position to do any work and earn, as also the fact that second petitioner before the trial court was a minor as on date of filing of petition and as such he was also entitled to maintenance and taking note of these facts and gross salary of respondent-husband was to the tune of Rs.24,255/- awarded maintenance. These aspects which had been overlooked by learned trial Judge was re-examined by Revisional Court for enhancing maintenance to wife by directing respondent therein to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to first petitioner and Rs.3,000/- per month to second petitioner till he attains majority. Said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is just and proper and it does not suffer from any material irregularity calling for interference at the hands of this Court.
No grounds. Hence, petition stands rejected.
AN/-
SD/- JUDGE