IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.609/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI D.G. MOHANA PRESENTLY AGED 41 YEARS S/O. SRI GANGAMMA R/O. DONNERE VILLAGE KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK-572 216 TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI N. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. D. LAKSHMI @ ASHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS W/O. SRI MOHAN D.G.
2. KUM. D.M. ASHWINI AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS D/O. SRI MOHAN D.G. REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN THE MOTHER SMT. D. LAKSHMI @ ASHA BOTH ARE R/O. KACHIGHATTA MEGALAHATTI VILLAGE, BANAWARA HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK-583 125 HASSAN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2013 IN CRL. REVISION PETITION NO.36/2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, HASSAN AND THEREBY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2012 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.73/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Court below directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- for the respondent till her life time and a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the second respondent till the date of her marriage.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below failed to take into consideration the source of income available to the respondent No.1. Hence, the impugned orders suffer from patent error warranting interference by this Court.
4. Perused the impugned order. It is noticed that the petitioner herein has taken up a specific plea before the trial Court that the 1st respondent is gainfully employed and working as a tailor earning about Rs.5,000/- per month. But both the Courts have held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the said plea with cogent evidence and that except the interested testimony of the petitioner, no other material was produced before the trial court to substantiate the fact that respondent No.1 was working as a tailor and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Under the said circumstances, the findings recorded by the court below cannot be faulted with.
5. With regard to the other contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no notice issued to the petitioner by the Revisional Court is concerned, the records indicate that the petitioner was represented by his counsel before the Revisional Court. As a result, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. Consequently, petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek for modification or alteration of the maintenance awarded by the Court below on proof of any change of circumstances under Section 127 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-