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 CRIMINAL PETITION No.6296 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI K.T. ESHWAR @ ERADHIMMAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDENT AT KAIDALA VILLAGE GULUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-573231 WORKING AS CONSTABLE, NO. 970090319 81, BN, BSF, G-COY ALLAHABAD ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: M B CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. K.P ROOPAVATHI W/O K T ESHWAR @ ERADHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 2. DUSHANTH S/O K T ESHWAR @ ERADHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 05 YEARS MINOR REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT BOTH R/AT NO. 357 NEAR GANDHI SCHOOL JOGIHALLI EXTENSION C N HALLI, TUMKUR DIST-573231. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:28.8.13 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.6/13 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DIST., AND S.J., TIPTUR AND THE ORDER DATED:10.12.12 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.268/10 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.PC seeking to quash the concurrent findings of the courts below, directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of respondents 1 and 2.
2. Referring to the factual findings recorded by court below that petitioner herein is drawing gross salary of Rs.26,157/- and his net salary is Rs.18,127/-, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount of maintenance determined by the trial Court is exorbitant and disproportionate to the income of the petitioner.
3. Disputing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order was passed in the year 2012. Since then, salary of the petitioner has increased three fold.
4. Without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions urged by the parties, having regard to the fact that the respondents are dependent on the income of the petitioner, in my view, the amount awarded by the court below is just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
AN/-
Sd/- JUDGE