IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.743 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Sri. N. Govindaraju S/o Narayana Raju Aged about 46 Years Resident of No.30/2 Kamadhenu Nilaya Swimming Pool Extension Sudeendra Nagar, 7th Cross Malleshwaram, Bengaluru - 560 003.
(By Sri. Dayalu K. N, Adv.) AND:
1. Smt. Vagdevi D/o late Doddaraju W/o N. Govindaraju Aged about 42 Years 2. Master Shashnk G S/o N. Govindaraju Aged about 10 Years Since Minor Represented by his Mother Smt. Vagdevi ... Petitioner Both are r/at KSRTC Colony Near APS School, Ward No.23, Hosur Road, Anekal Town, Bengaluru District - 562106. …Respondents (By Sri Chandrashekar P Patil, Advocate) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 05.02.2019 passed in C.Misc.No.69/2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the order dated 5.2.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. No.69/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent-wife.
3. The case of the respondent-wife is that, the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 25.02.2001. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born on 12.9.2008. It is further contended that the dowry was given at the time of marriage to the petitioner and subsequently, petitioner-husband started giving physical and mental torture to the 1st respondent demanding further dowry. A police complaint was also registered in this regard at Anekal police station. Thereafter, again she joined the petitioner-husband. But the harassment and ill-treatment continued and as such, she left her matrimonial house and another complaint was registered against the petitioner before Vyalikaval police station for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC, which is pending in C.C.No.25694/2017. It is further contended that petitioner-husband is having sufficient source of income. The respondents are residing in a rented house and second respondent is studying in 5th standard and respondent-wife is not able to pay even the fees of the second respondent and now she is working as a teacher on a temporary basis. On these grounds, she has prayed for monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- before the Court below. Application was also filed for grant of interim maintenance. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has granted monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner-husband is before this Court.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without service of notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. It is his further submission that the principles of natural justice have not been followed before passing the order. Petitioner is not having sufficient source of income and the amount awarded to the extent of Rs.5,000/- is on the higher side. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order.
5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the first respondent-wife vehemently argued and submitted that second respondent is studying in 5th standard and in order to pay the fees and other incidental charges, the amount granted by the Court below is on the lower side. It is his further submission that the Court below by exercising the power conferred on it has granted the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court and it deserves to be confirmed. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband that the Court below without giving notice to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order by violating the principles of natural justice. But, it is well settled proposition of law as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions that the Court below is having discretionary power to grant interim maintenance, if such application has been filed, in order to avoid destitution and hardship which would be caused to the respondent-wife and her child.
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the interim maintenance granted is on the higher side. On the contrary, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent- wife is doing part time job as teacher and the income she is getting is not sufficient to meet the day to day expenses including the expenses of the child. However, the matter is to be heard and decided on merits before the Court below.
9. Keeping open all the contentions to be urged before the Court below, I am of the considered opinion that, if petitioner-husband is directed to pay a monthly interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month till final adjudication of the dispute, it would meet the ends of justice.
10. In that light, petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 5.2.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.69/2019 is modified and petitioner-husband is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month from today till the disposal of the petition before the Court below.
I.A.No.3/2019 filed for vacating stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp