IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6183/2016 BETWEEN:
R.L.Surendrababu S/o Lakshminarasimhaiah Aged about 54 years R/o Maraganaunte Village Gulur Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Kolar District – 561207. ...Petitioner (By Sri. R. Rakshith, Adv. for Sri.S.Shankarappa, Adv.) AND:
Smt. Shashikala W/o R.L.Surendrababu D/o Vijayashekara Guptha Aged about 43 years R/o C/o Sri. T.Narayanappa 7th Division, Chikkaballapura city – 562101.
…Respondent (Respondent served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Prl.C.J. and JMFC, Chikkaballapur in CMC No.221/2013 and order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, in Crl.R.P.No.93/2015.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Though, respondent is served, she is unrepresented.
2. Petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He filed a petition for divorce in M.C.No.107/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chikkaballapura. During the pendency of the said petition, respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure in C.M.C.No.221/2013 seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. In the said petition, she averred that she has been neglected by the petitioner though he has sufficient means and capacity to look after her. She further averred that the petitioner is earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month out of his business. He is also an agriculturist having movable and immovable properties and from all these sources, he is earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum.
3. Petitioner-husband denied the aforesaid averments made by the respondent-wife in the petition and took up a plea that the respondent-wife is not entitled for any maintenance. In the statement of objections, he contended that he is a rustic resident of Guluru Hobli and has some dry land. He used to grow crops only in rainy season and his income was not sufficient to lead his family.
4. During the course of trial, the respondent – wife examined herself as PW1 and produced evidence at Exs.P1 to P17, out of which, Exs.P10 and P11 are the house list extracts and Exs.P12 to P17 are the RTC extracts. Considering the said materials, the learned Magistrate recorded a finding that petitioner-husband is having house properties as per Exs.P10 and P11 and RTC extracts to show that the landed properties are Kuski lands. The learned Magistrate did not determine the actual income derived by the petitioner – husband from the house properties or from the landed properties. But relying on the above said documents, straightaway directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. Hence, the present petition.
5. There is nothing in the impugned order to indicate the extent of agricultural land held by the petitioner and the income derived by him out of the said property. As already stated above in the petition, the respondent-wife averred that the monthly income derived by the petitioner- husband from the said properties is above Rs.1 lakh per annum, that is about Rs.8,000/- per month. There is no material to show that the actual income derived from the house properties. As a result, the only material available before the trial court to prove the income of the petitioner – husband were the RTC extracts and no other documents. According to the respondent-wife, the petitioner-husband was deriving income from the landed properties at Rs.1 lakh p.a. Under the said circumstances, the trial court could not have directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month, which means, the entire income earned by the petitioner from the landed properties. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained.
6. In the light of the above discussion and considering the admission made in the pleading, I hold that the petitioner-husband has been deriving income from the landed properties at Rs.1 lakh p.a. Hence, petitioner- husband is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of petition. To this extent, the impugned order calls for modification.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. In modification of the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkaballapur, in Crl.Misc.No.221/2013, petitioner herein is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of petition till the life time of the respondent, subject to revision under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Srl.
Sd/- JUDGE