IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P.NO. 4003 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. K. NARAYANA S/O LATE GOVINDA BATHADA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT KOTEHAKLU, VAKVADI VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.
(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA .P – ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. KANAKA D/O LATE BANDIYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT MELKATKERI, KONI VILLAGE KOTESHWARA POST KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576101.
(BY SRI U. S. YOGESH KUMAR – ADV., ) …PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO a)QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.1242/2015 U/S 125(3) OF CR.P.C. PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 23.04.2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura in Crl.Misc.Case No.968/2012 on the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.1242/2015.
2. The Trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner and the respondent, vide order dated 23.04.2015, directed the petitioner-husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the respondent-wife from the date of petition till her life time. The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously disputed the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. He contends that the petitioner has married one Leela. Respondent is not the wife of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order, being contrary to facts and material on record, is liable to be set aside.
4. In para-10 of the impugned order dated 23.04.2015, learned Magistrate has considered the above contention with reference to the evidence adduced by the parties and has observed as under:
“In the cross-examination of P.W.1, respondent has tried to prove that petitioner is having sufficient income and even her children are earning. The main dispute in this case is the very relationship between petitioner and respondent. The respondent in the counter has taken up the contention that, he is not having any relationship with the petitioner or with her children. In the cross-examination P.W.1 has been put a suggestion that the house in which she is residing is the original house of the respondent’s family. She has admitted that it is the original house. If petitioner is not at all related to the respondent why he has permitted the petitioner to reside in his house from the year 1978 is the question which the respondent alone can answer. Respondent in the cross-examination of P.W.1 has put a suggestion that, as one Kumara Mestri whom respondent is contending to be husband of petitioner left her and as there was no other alternative petitioner was given in marriage to respondent. The relevant portion of the deposition of P.W.1 is reproduced as follows: “PÀĪÀiÁgÀ ªÉÄùÛç ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃzÀ PÁgÀt £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ UÀw E®èzÀ PÁgÀt JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr PÉÆlÖgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è”
This part of deposition of P.W.1 clearly shows that, P.W.1 has not admitted her marriage with Kumara Mestri but respondent has through the suggestion has admitted his marriage with the petitioner. Further in the cross-examination of P.W.1, respondent has tried to show that he has looked after the children of the petitioner very well and has not given any trouble to them. He has also tried to prove that, he had tried to arrange marriage for the children of petitioner. The respondent has also tried to show that, his and petitioner’s marriage has not taken place according to customs. All these efforts by respondent clearly shows that, there is a relationship between petitioner and respondent. This relationship has become clear in the cross-examination of R.W.1.”
5. The said finding, in my view, based on the evidence produced before the Court below and was sufficient to allow the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is trite law that a strict proof for marriage is not necessary to justify the claim under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Even though the petitioner has contended that he has married one Leela, he has failed to produce any document to rebut the evidence adduced by the respondent in proof of her relationship with the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. In so far as the means and capacity of the petitioner to pay the said maintenance is concerned, the Court below has taken note of the fact that the petitioner is a retired Village Accountant and he is drawing pension of Rs.12,000/- per month plus allowances and therefore, even the quantum of maintenance determined by the learned Magistrate does not call for any interference by this Court. As a result, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE TL