IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P.No.5828/2014 BETWEEN:
Sri S.Kumar, S/o Shivanna, Aged about 38 years, R/at Midigirapalli village, HCF Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamilnadu – 635 109. … PETITIONER (By Sri Srinivasa.D.C., Adv.) AND:
Smt. Pankaja, W/o S.Kumara, Aged about 32 years, R/at Hurulagere village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District – 563 130. … RESPONDENT (By Sri S.Visweswaraiah, Adv.) This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC praying to set aside the order dated 19.08.2014 passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Cr.R.P.No.52/2012 and the order dated 18.06.2012 passed by the JMFC, Malur, in C.Misc.No.66/2008 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- monthly maintenance to the respondent.
This petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC calling in question the correctness and legality of the order passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Crl.R.P.No.52/2012 dated 19.08.2014, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has reduced the maintenance awarded by the JMFC, Malur, in C.Misc.No.66/2008, to Rs.3,000/- per month.
2. The respondent herein filed an application under Section 125 Cr.PC before the JMFC, Malur, claiming maintenance for herself and her minor child at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month, on the ground that the petitioner herein had neglected to maintain her and the minor child. Both the parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence and on considering the same, the learned Magistrate by order dated 18.06.2012 directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the respondent for herself and for her minor child. The petitioner herein challenged the said order before the revisional court and by the impugned order dated 19.08.2014, the learned Sessions Judge has reduced the monthly maintenance to Rs.3,000/-.
3. Having regard to the avocation and the income of the petitioner, in my view, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in reducing the maintenance. However, the respondent having not challenged the said order, I do not find it appropriate to enter into the said controversy.
4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the respondent on her own accord deserted the petitioner, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC. I am unable to accept this submission. The records indicate that on account of the harassment meted out to the respondent, she had to take shelter in her parents house. There is nothing on record to indicate that after the respondent left the matrimonial home, the petitioner herein has taken any steps to call her back or to continue with the matrimonial relationship with her. The fact remains that as on the date of submission of the application, the petitioner had failed to look after and maintain the petitioner. Under the circumstances, no fault could be found in the impugned orders directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 Cr.PC.
5. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any justifiable reason to admit this petition. Consequently, the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.
6. Respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit before this Court.
Sd/- JUDGE KK