IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4725 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY K R S/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O KALAPURA VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK-572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT.
(BY SRI: K.R. RAVICHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT H D PARVATHAMMA W/O.K.R.NARASIMHA MURTHY, D/O DODDATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O HUNASAKATTE, BUKKAPTNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. NAYANA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, ... PETITIONER MINOR, REPTD. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN, 1 PETITIONER SMT.H.D.PARVATHAMMA & RESIDING WITH I PETITIONER (BY SRI: K.N.SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: K R RAMESH, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2012 PASSED BY THE C.J. AND J.M.F.C., SIRA IN C.MISC. NO.348/2007 ONLY IN SO FAR AS GRANTING MONTLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.1,500/- TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FROM THE DATE OF THE SAID ORDER TILL HER MARRIAGE AND ALSO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4.1.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-I, TUMKUR IN CRL.RP.NO.108/2012 ALLOW THIS PETITION.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time. No grounds.
Prayer rejected. Perused the petition.
Heard the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in C.Misc.No.348/2007, whereby the second respondent is awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- p.m., Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. Before the trial court, the first respondent examined herself as PW-1 and produced Exs-P1 to P18. In rebuttal, petitioner examined himself as RW-1 and two other witnesses and relied on Ex-R1 to R41. The petitioner herein denied the paternity of the child. However, considering the material on record, the trial court was of the opinion that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and 2nd respondent was the legitimate child born to them in the wedlock and accordingly allowed the petition in part, directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- p.m. to respondent No.2 from the date of the order. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.108/2012 and by order dated 04.01.2013, the petition has been dismissed confirming the order passed by the trial court.
3. Both the courts below have considered the prayer made by the respondents in proper perspective. I do not find any error or infirmity in the factual finding recorded by the courts below warranting interference by this Court. The petitioner has failed to make out any grounds for interference in the impugned orders.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2013 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-