IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.13 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Sri.Nagaraja S/o.Kannakkara Nagappa, aged about 44 years, R/o.Mangote Village, Holehonnur Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shivamogga District-577 201. ...Petitioner (By Sri.Shivananda D.S, Advocate for Sri. M.V.Hiremath, Advocate) AND:
Smt.Kumari, D/o.Eranna, Aged about 34 years, R/o.Lingadhahalli Village, Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. ...Respondent (By Sri. S.N.Naik, Advocate)(Absent) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Principal Sessions This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by petitioner- Husband challenging the judgment passed by the first appellate Court in Crl.A.135/2016 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru dated 26.07.2016. Whereunder, the order passed by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Tarikere in Crl.Misc.648/2014 dated 24.08.2015 was confirmed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-wife remains absent.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Court below without considering the material placed on record and without considering the actual income of the petitioner has awarded the monthly maintenance of ` 3,500/- per month as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that first appellate Court is a fact finding Court, without application of mind has confirmed the order of the trial Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is ever ready and willing to take her back, but, respondent-wife without just cause has refused to live with the petitioner-husband. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court. He further submitted that the maintenance which has been granted is on the higher side and on these grounds the maintenance has to be reduced which has been granted by the trial court. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned Order passed by the Court below.
4. Before considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner I feel it is just and proper to place it on record the gist of the case.
5. The respondent-wife got married with the petitioner on 06.12.2007. At the time of marriage some dowry in the form of gold and cash was paid and after the marriage, she started living with the petitioner-husband. Thereafter, they came and resided at Bengaluru and petitioner-husband started quarrelling with her for silly reasons and he also used to ill-treat and harass her, along with her parents. When she became pregnant, petitioner- husband forces her to return to her parental house and when she refused he threatened her to deal with her life and being apprehended that she returned back to her parents house. Thereafter, she gave birth to a child in the month of April, 2009. After completion of eight months she was not taken back by the petitioner-husband and has neglected to maintain her and it is also further alleged that he has got second marriage. On these grounds, she prayed for maintenance.
6. The respondent after service of notice appeared and filed the objections and denying the contentions of the petition, he further submitted that the respondent-wife has refused to live with him and she has voluntarily gone to her parents house and has not returned back to his house. It is further contended that efforts made by him to bring her back is failed. He is ever ready to lead the marital life. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Thereafter, the trial Court after recording the evidence of the petitioner and getting marked 25 documents and thereafter the respondent also led the evidence and the trial Court after considering the material placed on record, allowed the petition as against the petitioner-husband and granted a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- from the date of the petition. In so far as the parents respondents No.2 and 3 are concerned, the same is dismissed.
8. As to be seen from the record, that the application was came to be filed under the Domestic Violence Act for claiming the maintenance. In the evidence, which has been lead by respondent-wife she has deposed that at the time of marriage some dowry and gold has been given and thereafter the petitioner-husband started ill-treating and harassing and she has been forced to go to her parents house when she was pregnant and thereafter she was not taken back to his matrimonial home. After cross-examination in length nothing elucidated to discard her evidence during cross in so far as taking of the dowry and other things is concerned and same has been admitted. But though it is contended by the petitioner-husband that he has made efforts to bring her back and to substantiate the said fact no documents have been produced or no witness have been examined. When the petitioner has not made any efforts to bring her back. Then under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he has made efforts to bring her back does not substantiate and as such, the trial Court has rightly rejected the same.
9. Even as could be seen from the objection he has deposed that he is not having any sufficient income and he was doing coolie work and out of the said work he use to get Rs.200/- per day. But, as could be seen from the ExP4 to P6 that the RTC extract, it indicates that petitioner-husband is owning a landed properties, it also reveals that he is having areca nut and coconut trees in the said land. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, that the said land is standing in the name of father and mother, but no documents have been produced to show that he is not having any share in the property and he is not getting any income out of the said property. If really he is not having any income then in such circumstances, he could have fairly submitted that he is not having any property and they are standing in the names of his parents. But he has specifically stated that he is a coolie and no other income is there and respondent is having their land and a house. Then under such circumstances he has to maintain the petitioner and the minor child. As could be seen from the order of the trial Court it has awarded an amount of Rs.3,500/- to both the wife and child. Under the present facts and circumstances and when the petitioner-husband has refused to maintain the respondent-wife then under such circumstances the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the trial Court appears to be just and proper and it does not require any interference. Though, it is submitted during the course of argument that the amount of maintenance awarded to the extent of Rs.3,500/- is on the higher side, but in a present hick in price condition and other needs if they are taken into consideration, the amount which has been awarded appears to be just and proper and it does not require any interference.
10. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of first appellate Court and the order of the trial Court.
11. After considering all the material placed on record, that the Court below have come to the right conclusion. The orders passed by the trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal, they does not require any interference, the Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of criminal revision petition, IA.No.3/2017 does not survive for consideration and hence, it is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE ag