IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1470/2013 BETWEEN:
SATHISH HEGDE S/O L.V.HOOVAPPA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT LAKKUNDA UNTOORKATTE KAIMARA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577432 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.S.DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT.K.T.SUMA W/O L.H.SATHISH HEDGE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KALLUGUNDI, ARAGA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577432 2. KUM. NIREEKHA D/O L.H.SATHISH HEDGE AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS R/AT KALLUGUNDI, ARAGA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577432 3. NISCHITHA S/O L.H.SATHISH HEDGE AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS R/AT KALLUGUNDI, ARAGA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577432 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADV.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:
15.6.12 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI IN CRL.MISC.NO.227/06 CONFIRMED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, I FTC, SHIMOGA IN CRL.RP.NO.112/12 ON 18.2.13.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Thirthahalli in Crl.Misc.No.227/20106 whereby the leaned Magistrate has directed the petitioner herein to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.750/- per month to respondent No.3 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The said order is confirmed by the Sessions Judge, I Fast Track Court at Shimoga in Crl.RP.No.112/2012 dated 18.02.2013.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any error whatsoever warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Both the Courts below have considered the fact that the petitioner herein has neglected to look after the respondents. The Courts below have considered the means and capacity of the petitioner and the need and requirement of the respondents for their livelihood and has property determined the quantum of maintenance. Hence, the impugned order does not warrant interference.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VM