IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1464/2014 Between:
Sri N.Narayana S/o Late Narayanappa Aged about 53 years, Occ: Working as Lineman Telephone Exchange Ramanagara – 562 159 Ramanagara District. … Petitioner (By Sri Lokesh R, Advocate) And:
Smt. Gangamma W/o. Sri N. Narayana Aged about 44 years R/at No.1442/3 C/o. Sathish Kumbalagod Bangalore – 560 074. ...Respondent (Respondent served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara in Crl.R.P. No.26/2013 and the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara in C.Misc.No177/2011.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent is served and unrepresented. Perused the petition.
2. The petitioner calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara in Crl.R.P. No.26/2013, whereby the learned District and Sessions Judge has modified the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara in C.Misc.No.177/2011 and has directed the petitioner herein to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent (wife) till her death.
3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner and respondent were married for nearly 30 years. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C claiming maintenance from the petitioner (husband). Before the trial Court, the respondent examined herself and produced 16 documents including copy of the salary certificate of the petitioner and 10 RTC extracts to show that the petitioner is possessed of sufficient means. The petitioner herein failed to adduce any oral and documentary evidence to rebut the material produced by the respondent. Considering the same, the trial Court determined the maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the Revisional Court reduced the said maintenance to Rs.5,000/- per month.
4. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The fact that the petitioner herein refused to look after and maintain the respondent is also not under challenge. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondent is gainfully employed and her two male children are also gainfully employed. This circumstance, in my view, cannot be a factor affecting the quantum of maintenance payable to the respondent. The trial Court has rightly taken into consideration the salary income of the petitioner relying on the salary certificate – Ex.P.5 and has noted that during the year 2009, the petitioner was drawing a gross salary of Rs.14,230/-. On that basis, the trial Court had fixed the maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month. However, considering the expenses of the petitioner, the Sessions Court has reduced the maintenance amount to Rs.5,000/- per month. Since the petitioner does not have any other heads of income and that he is not required to look after or maintain any other dependants, the amount determined by the Revisional Court at Rs.5,000/- per month, in my view, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. I do not find any merit on this petition. As a result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM