IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1538/2017 BETWEEN:
RAMALINGAIAH S/O LATE HELEVAEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT YARAGNAHALLI ATGAGURU HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA -560 157 …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. R.VINAY S/O RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS REP. BY NATURAL MOTHER D.L.LATHA R/AT C/O LINGAIAH NO.2072, 1ST CROSS SUBASH NAGARA MANDYA- 560 157 2. D.L.LATHA W/O RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT C/O LINGAIAH NO.2072, 1ST CROSS SUBASH NAGARA MANDYA- 560 157 ...RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA IN CRL.MISC.NO.33/2008 AND THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN CRL.REV.PETITION NO.20/2016.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Shri Raju C.N., learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has called in question order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Court of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.RP.No.20/2016 dismissing the revision petition and thereby confirming the order dated 28.12.2015 passed by the learned trial Judge in Crl.Mis.No.33/2008 awarding a sum of Rs.3,000/- each as monthly maintenance to the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2-wife is also employed as a teacher and therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.
4. Undisputedly, second respondent is the wife and the first respondent is petitioner’s minor son. Learned trial Judge based on evidence has recorded that the petitioner’s salary is Rs.24,000/- per month. He has also noticed that the second respondent was earning Rs.3,500/- per month. He has further recorded that the petitioner also owns agricultural property. After considering the material on record, the trial Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- each to the petitioner’s wife and the minor son. Learned Sessions Judge on re-consideration, has dismissed the revision petition.
5. The solitary ground urged before this Court is that the respondent No.2-wife is also gainfully employed as noticed hereinabove. She earns Rs.3,500/- per month. The petitioner’s son is aged 15 years. Keeping in view of the present standard of living, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE LB