IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1204/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI K. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT. GAJAGA VILLAGE MAGONDHI POST BANGARPET TALUK – 563114 (BY SRI J.G.CHANDRA MOHAN, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. SMT. NAGAVENI @ NARAYANAMMA W/O. K. VENKATARAMANAPPA D/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. MASTER SIDDESH S/O. K. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS SINCE 2ND RESPONDENT IS A MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BEING MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN BOTH ARE R/AT MANGONDHI VILLAGE & POST BANGARPET TALUK ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHANKAR S. BHAT, ADV.) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF) IN ALLOWING CRL.R.P.NO.36/2016 ON 29.11.2016 THEREBY MODIFYING THE JUDGMETN AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, BANGARPET, IN CRL.MISC.NO.41/2007 DATED 06.02.2016 ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2016, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in Crl.R.P.No.36/2016 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge modified the order dated 06.02.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Bangarpet in CMC.No.41/2017 and directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to each of the respondents from the date of the petition.
3. The respondents herein filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that in spite of possessing sufficient means, the petitioner neglected to maintain the respondents. Before the trial Court, respondent No.1 herein examined herself as PW.1 and produced four documents including two RTCs, one of which related to an extent of 25 guntas of agricultural land standing in the name of the petitioner and another RTC in respect of 5 acres 39 gutans of land standing in the name of his mother - Gangamma.
4. In rebuttal, the petitioner herein examined himself as RW.1. Considering the material on record, the trial Court determined the maintenance payable by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to each of the respondents. The said order reveals, that the trial Court took into consideration only the income earned by the petitioner as coolie and not the income derived from his landed property or the property of his mother. Respondents challenged the said order seeking enhancement, before the revisional Court and by the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge modified the order and directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to each of the respondents from the date of the petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has availed loan against the landed properties which has not been considered by the Courts below and that the petitioner does not have any steady or regular income to pay the maintenance ordered by the Courts below and thus, sought to set aside the impugned judgment and order.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the impugned orders contending that the Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below 7. As noted above, petitioner has not disclosed his actual income either in his objection or during his evidence. He has taken up a plea before the trial Court that he is a coolie and does not have any regular income, but to rebut the said plea, the respondents have produced two RTCs, which disclose that the petitioner is holding 25 guntas of land. Unfortunately, the trial Court has not computed the income derived by him from this property instead the trial Court has determined the income solely on the basis of his occupation as a coolie. The contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner go to show that even the property held by him is also yielding income, as it is contended that he has availed loan on the mortgage of these properties. Even in this regard, he has not produced any document, leading to an inevitable inference that he has withheld these documents with a view to suppress the actual income derived by him from these properties. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders do not call for interference by this Court. Resultantly, petition is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2017 does not arise for consideration and the same is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj