IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2308 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. S. JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O B.M. VISHWANATH R/O DASARAKALLAHALLI HONEHONNUR HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
2. MASTER ANSHUMAN S/O B.M. VISHWANTH AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS SINCE MINOR (UNDER THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF 1 PETITIONER) (BY SRI: DHEERAJ.K., ADVOCATE FOR S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
B.M. VISHWANATH S/O A.B. MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS SHIVASHRAYA NILAYA, VIDYA NAGARA, A-BLOCK, ... PETITIONERS HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577101.
... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND S.J., SHIVAMOGGA (SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI) IN CRL.R.P.NO.51/2015 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.03.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.MISC.NO.172/2013 TO THE EXTENT DECLINING TO GRANT RELIEF OF RESIDENTIAL RIGHT AS WELL AS THE QUANTUM OF MONTHLY MAINTENANCE ARE CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN CRL.MISC.NO.172/2013 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set-aside the order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Crl.R.P.No.51/2015, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has partly allowed the revision petition and has modified the order passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi in C.Misc.No.172/2013 dated 11.03.2015, whereby the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 from the date of the petition.
2. The petitioners herein filed C.Misc.No.172/2013 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.20,000/- per month to the second petitioner and for other reliefs. In order to substantiate her claim, the first petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and produced in evidence Exs-P1 to P80. In rebuttal, respondent herein examined himself as RW-1 and got marked Exs-R1 to 7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate by order dated 11.03.2015 directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the first petitioner and petitioner No.2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners carried the matter in revision before the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga and by the impugned order dated 28.01.2016 in Crl.R.P.No.51/2015, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the quantum of maintenance and has directed the respondent to pay the said maintenance from the date of the petition.
3. Though the petitioners have urged various grounds in the petition contending that the courts below have not properly appreciated the material on record, but the impugned orders disclose that both the courts below have analysed the oral and documentary evidence and have recorded concurrent finding of facts. No error or infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners either in the appreciation of evidence or in the factual finding recorded by the courts below. On the other hand, the records indicate that as against the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the respondent herein questioned the same before the IV Additional and Sessions Judge in Crl.A.117/2015 and by judgment dated 28.01.2016, even the appeal has been dismissed thereby confirming the order passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi in C.Misc.No.172/2013. The parties appears to have not challenged the said order, as such, the said order has attained finality. Under the said circumstances, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below. Moreover, the impugned orders having been confirmed in appeal by the jurisdictional Court, there is absolutely no reason for the petitioners to raise grievance about the quantum of maintenance determined by the courts below. For all these reasons, petition is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-