IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P.NO.3368 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SRI RAGHU SHETTY S/O BACHHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND SAW MILL OWNER R/O ARASALU, KEREHALLI HOBLI HOSANAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577234.
(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA .P – ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KAVITHA R AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O RAGHU SHETTY 2. KUMAR PRAJWAL AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS S/O RAGHU SHETTY (R-1 IS DAUGHTER, R-2 IS MINOR –REP. BY R-1) BOTH ARE R/O ARASALU KEREHALLI HOBLI, HOSANAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DIST-577234.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI ADITHYA KUMAR H.R. – ADV., FOR SRI M. RAVINDRANATH – ADV., ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / MODIFIED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST., AND S.J., SHIMOGA BY ITS ORDER DATED 3.2.2014 DISMISSING THE CRL.R.P. VIZ CRL.R.P.NO.14/2013 AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT VIZ HON’BLE C.J. AND J.M.F.C HOSANAGARA IN C.MIS.NO. 33/2011 BY ITS ORDER DATED 28.11.2012 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY SUM OF RS.2,000/- TO BE PAID TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNTIL SHE GETS MARRIED, AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.2,000/- TO BE PAID TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNTIL HE ATTAINS MAJORITY AND LITIGATION EXPENSES OF RS.2,500/- ALSO AWARDED TO THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below directing the petitioner herein to pay maintainence of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to respondent No.1 until she gets married and a sum of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to respondent No.2 until he attains majority.
2. Petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. Going by the age declared in the cause tilte of the petition, respondent No.2 appears to have attained majority. Petitioner is therefore liable to pay maintainence to respondent No.2 until the date of majority. Likewise petitioner is also entitled to pay maintainence to respondent No.1 until the marriage of his daughter. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. Petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/14 filed for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2014 is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE TL