IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI CRIMINAL RP NO. 200 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI K R CHIDANANDA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT GORAVANAHALLI VILLAGE TD HALLI POST, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
(BY SRI. RAVIPRAKASH V, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT S R PAVITRA W/O LATE K.R.CHIDANANDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 2. K C AKUL S/O K.R.CHIDANANDA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN i.e., RESPONDENT No.1 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KRIGANDUR VILLAGE SOMVARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571 232.
(R-1 AND R-2 ARE SERVED) ….PETITIONER ….RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE MODIFICATION ORDER DATED 21.11.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., KODAGU, MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO. 10 OF 2016 AND ALSO THE ODER DATED 4.1.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SOMAWARPET IN CRL. MISC.NO. 148 OF 2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE CLAIM OF RESPONDENT HERE IN.
THIS CRIMINAL RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present revision petition to set aside the modification order dated 21.11.2016, passed by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in Crl.A.No.10/2016.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
Petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2. The marriage of petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 27.04.2008 and after the marriage, the attitude and nature of the respondent No.1 changed considerably and she ill-treated the petitioner and his family members. When respondent No.1 was questioned, she left the matrimonial home and lodged a false case against the petitioner in Crime No.46/2012 against the petitioner and his family members. The respondent No.1 filed a petition in Crl.M.C.No.148/2014 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, and also sought for Rs.10,000/- towards monthly maintenance for herself and her son, and for grant of Rs.4,000/- per month towards rent.
The petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and filed statement of objections admitting his relationship with the respondents and sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.1 was examined as PW-1 and got marked 13 documents as per Exs.P1 to P13. Petitioner was examined as RW-1 and got marked 2 documents as per Exs.R1 and R2. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments on both sides, has framed the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner proves any alleged domestic violence by the respondents against her?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that the 1st respondent having sufficient means and he has willfully neglected or refused to maintain her?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that she is unable to maintain herself?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for relief sought in the petition?
5. What order?
The Trial Court allowed the petition by answering point No.1 in negative, point Nos. 2 and 3 in affirmative and point No.4 partly in affirmative. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondents towards rent, from the date of petition and also directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to each of the respondents from the date of petition and was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.1 for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress caused to her for domestic violence, within a period of three months.
The petitioner questioned the said order in Crl.A.No.10/2016 before the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri. The Appellate Court after hearing the arguments of the parties was pleased to frame the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the court below is justified in granting the reliefs to the respondents, as per the impugned order?
2. Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
3. What order?
The Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 and 2 partly in affirmative and modified the order passed by the Trial Court by reducing the monthly maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,000/-, to each of the respondents and also set aside the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, has preferred this revision petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and that they are residing separately. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his grievance is only with regard to the date from which maintenance amount is awarded, and not the quantum of maintenance. He further submits that the order of the Appellate Court be modified in regard to the date of payment of maintenance.
5. The petitioner being the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, is legally bound to maintain the respondents. The amount awarded by the Trial Court, which was modified by the Appellate Court, is meager. In the present economic scenario, Rs.2,000/- may not be sufficient for leading a normal life. Admittedly, the respondents are residing separately from the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court in exercise of the discretion vested with it, awarded maintenance from the date of petition. The Appellate Court was justified in confirming the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the payment of maintenance from the date of petition. The respondents have not challenged the order of the Appellate Court. I do not find any merits in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out any grounds for interference.
6. In view of the above said reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
Order The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Judge RD