IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6146/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. DINESH SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O BABU JATTANNA R/O SRI. DEVI NILAYA MANCHI KODI, KUNJIBETTU POST UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576 230.
(BY SMT. MANJULA D ON BEHALF OF SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. SOWMYA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O DINESH SUVARNA D/O LATE PRAKASH POOJARY R/AT LINGOTTIGUDDE SANTHEKATTE POST UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576 230.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:24.05.2018 IN CRL.REVISION PETITION NO.8/2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE UDUPI DISTRICT AT UDUPI ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Smt. Manjula D, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the records.
2. Learned trial Judge after evaluation of material on record has awarded an interim maintenance of `4,000/- per month to each of the petitioners (wife and son) by order dated 27.01.2017.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, husband filed a revision petition before learned Sessions Judge, who by an elaborate order dated 24.05.2018 has allowed the petition in part and reduced the maintenance to `3,000/- each. Contending what has been awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is exorbitant and excessive and ignoring the fact that petitioner-husband is not capable of paying maintenance amount awarded, since he is earning a meager salary, petitioner is before this Court. Smt.
Manjula, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would reiterate the grounds urged in the petition.
4. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove and the fact that first respondent, who claims to have been deserted by petitioner-husband, to eke out her livelihood as well as that of her son, who is aged about 9 months, had approached trial Court for award of maintenance and trial judge had awarded `4,000/- per month to each of them, which learned Sessions Judge has reduced it to `3,000/- each considering the qualification of petitioner herein being a Lab Assistant and accordingly has reduced the amount of maintenance to be paid to wife and son, which cannot be construed as exorbitant or excessive. It also requires to be observed at this stage that it is only interim maintenance which has been ordered and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds no good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, petition stands rejected.
In view of petition having been rejected, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and same is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE DR