IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1692/2016 Between:
Sri. Niranjanamurthy, S/o Kenchanna, Aged about 36 years, Agriculturist, R/at Kurubara Halli, Huniseghatta Post, Bukkapatna Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakur District–577401. …PETITIONER (By Sri V.S.Hegde, Advocate) And:
1. Chandana, D/o Sri. Niranjanamurthy, (as per petition), Aged about 4 years, Represented by next friend, Mother, 2nd Respondent.
2. Netravathi, W/o Niranjanamurthy, (as per petition), Aged about 33 years, Both are residents of Kurubara Halli, Now Residing at Marenadu Village, Huliyar Hobli, Chikkanyakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District – 577 405. ...RESPONDENTS (By Smt. S.B.Lakshmi, Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 13.02.2015 of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC C.N.Halli in I.A.No.1 in Crl.Misc.No.623/2013 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the Respondent No.2 and Rs.1000/- to the Respondent No.1 Annexure – D and etc., This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, C.N.Halli, on I.A.No.1 in C.Misc.No.623/2013 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 till the disposal of the main petition, which is confirmed by order dated 28.01.2016 in Crl.R.P.No.10009/2015 by learned V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and perused the records.
2. The impugned order dated 13.2.2015 was passed by the trial court on the application filed by respondents under section 125(1) Cr.P.C., at interim stage based on the affidavit and the prima facie documents produced by respondents and the same is confirmed by the revisional court by its order dated 28.01.2016. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.2 is disputed, is a question of fact which could be decided only after letting the evidence by the parties. Therefore the said contention cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceedings.
3. The impugned orders do not suffer from any error or infirmity warranting interference by this court. Having regard to the nature of the contentions urged by the parties, it is not proper to interfere with the impugned orders at this stage. Parties are at liberty to invite final order from the trial court.
With the above observation, petition is disposed of.
Bss Sd/- JUDGE