IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Crl.P.No.364/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI.NAGESH, S/O GOWDARA VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT MADDINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, T.GOLLAHALLI POST, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 116. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINATH ON BEHALF OF SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATES) AND:
SMT. GEETHA @ GEETHAMMA, D/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT MADDINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, T.GOLLAHALLI POST, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 116. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.08.2017 PASSED IN C.M.C.NO.16/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KGF AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.12.2018 PASSED IN CRL.REV.PET.NO.43/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Srinath, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, for petitioner.
2. Order passed in C.M.C.No.16/2010 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, K.G.F. allowing the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. from the date of petition (26.02.2010) till her life time, which has been affirmed in CrL.R.P.No.43/2017, by order dated 24.12.2018 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, has been called in question in this petition.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that there is serious dispute between the parties with regard to marital status and no reliable material was placed to establish the relationship between the parties and petition being a offshoot of political rivalry, order of maintenance granted by the trial Court as affirmed by the Revisional Court is liable to be set aside and petitioner is liable to be rejected.
4. Perusal of order passed by Courts below would indicate that respondent/wife herein had sought for maintenance contending that she was working as a house maid in the house of petitioner and as such, petitioner and respondent developed lover affair, which resulted in having physical relationship and she became pregnant and same was forcefully terminated by giving her pregnancy dissolving tablets. Despite repeated request for marrying her, petitioner was not ready and therefore, she informed family members of the respondent about said fact but they assaulted her physically and mentally and also tortured her. She has further stated later at the intervention of elders and well-wishers of both the families, marriage came to be solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 21.09.2003 and she lived happily for a period of two months along with petitioner and during the said period she again got conceived and on account of petitioner not willing to have children, forced her to consume tablets for terminating pregnancy. Since she apprehended danger to her life, she escaped from the clutches of petitioner and his family members and thereafter with the help of one Smt. Chowdamma, she informed this fact to her parents and her parents filed a complaint before jurisdictional police on 27.12.2003 which has resulted in filing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.202/2007 against petitioner and his family members for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 143 and 506 of IPC. On account of neglect of the petitioner to maintain respondent, she sought for payment of maintenance at Rs.8,000/- p.m. contending petitioner is earning Rs.20,000/- p.m.
5. As noticed herein above, petitioner herein appeared before trial court filed his statement of objections and it was a case of total denial of petition averments. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned trial judge framed points for consideration and with regard to the issue as to whether the respondent herein is the legally wedded wife of petitioner and as to whether their marriage came to be solemnized on 21.09.2003 at Kotilingeshwara Temple, Kammasandra, a finding came to be recorded in the Affirmative. Independent witnesses-PWs.2 to 5 have also supported the case of respondent-wife. In the light of said evidence, learned trial judge has recorded a finding that respondent-wife is an illiterate, rustic villager and she has not even attended the school and as such her plea deserves to be accepted in the light of attendant circumstances. In fact, during the course of cross-examination she has stated that she does not require any land or property but she intends to live in the company of her husband i.e., petitioner, which would only indicate or exhibit her innocence. Learned trial judge, by taking into consideration entire evidence both oral and documentary and appreciating the same with a holistic approach has arrived at a conclusion that respondent/wife has been neglected and petitioner/husband has refused to maintain her. Taking into consideration the status of parties and also the earning capacity of the petitioner herein as against the claim of Rs.8,000/- p.m. made by respondent-wife, a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. has been awarded by the trial court which is just and proper and same would not call for interference. In fact, Revisional Court, on re-appreciation of entire evidence on record has found there is no infirmity either in law or on facts which would call for interference. Said finding of fact recorded by both the Courts is just and proper, which would not call for interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, petition is rejected.
In view of rejection of main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and same is also rejected.
SD/- JUDGE TL