IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5483/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI H NAGARAJU S/O LATE HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 624, SWARNASANDRA, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571401.
(BY SRI RAGHU R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT SHANKARAMMA W/O H. NAGARAJU, (AS STATED IN THE PETITION) AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2. NAGARATHNA D/O H. NAGARAJU (AS STATED IN THE PETITION) AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 5TH CROSS, NEAR WATER TANK, TAVARGERE, EASTERN EXTENSION, …PETITIONER NEHARUNAGAR, MANDYA TOWN & TALUK 571401. (BY SRI L RAJA, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO THE ORDER DATED:30.3.2013 IN C.MISC.NO.100/2003, BEFORE THE COURT OF JMFC AT MANDYA AND ORDER DATED:23.8.14 IN CRL.RP.NO.113/2013 P.O., FTC, MANDYA ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time. The prayer is rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel for respondents.
3. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order dated 30.03.2013 in C.Misc.No.100/2003, whereby, learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- to respondent No.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The said order is confirmed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court, Mandya, in Crl.R.P.No.113/2013 dated 23.08.2014.
4. Learned counsel for respondents points out that at the earlier instance, the very same petitioner had approached this Court challenging the order of maintenance awarded by the trial Court in Crl.P.No.8200/2013 and by order dated 29.04.2014, the said petition was dismissed.
5. Nonetheless, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this petition, the trial Court has disposed of the main petition in C.Misc.No.100/2003 and by order dated 30.03.2013, the petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been rejected, holding that respondent No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
6. In view of the above order, the present petition does not survive for consideration. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final orders passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., if desired, this petition is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2014 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj