IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4210 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI S.RAJU S/O. SRINIVASA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS AGRICULTURIST AND CONTRACTOR R/AT. 5TH CROSS LEFT SIDE NEAR KEREKODAMMA TEMPLE HOSAMANE BHADRAVATHI - 577245 (BY SHRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. GAYATHRI W/O. S.RAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. R.SPOORTHY D/O.S.RAJU AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.2 REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER …PETITIONER SMT.GAYATHRI AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN BOTH ARE RESIDING AT C/O. VENKATARAMAIAH MAVINAKERE COLONY MAVINAKERE POST BHADRAVATHI-577245 … RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.5024/2018, DATED 22.03.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI, CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.32/2016 DATED 07.03.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has taken exception to the order passed by learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.5024/2018 enhancing the quantum of maintenance payable to his wife and daughter in a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month each as against only Rs.4,000/- cumulatively to the wife as ordered by the learned Magistrate.
2. Shri M.Shivaprakash, learned advocate for petitioner submitted that learned Sessions Judge has incorrectly recorded in paragraph No.16 of his order that petitioner is working as a Class-I Civil contractor whereas, the petitioner is Class-IV Civil contractor. Petitioner has aged parents to take care. Therefore, impugned order enhancing the quantum of maintenance to Rs.8,000/- is unsustainable. Petitioner did concede to the direction to pay Rs.4,000/- as ordered by learned Magistrate. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this petition.
3. I have carefully considered the submission of learned advocate for petitioner and perused the records.
4. Learned advocate has furnished copy of Ex.P10 which shows that petitioner is registered as Class-IV Civil contractor. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned Sessions Judge has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case.
5. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a Civil contractor. The ground urged is that petitioner is a Class-IV contractor and not a Class-I contractor. This ground is untenable because even if the petitioner is Class-IV contractor, he is duty bound to pay maintenance. It is relevant to note that learned Sessions Judge has also recorded that petitioner has not stated what is his actual income. First Appellate Court on reconsideration of the material on record, has awarded Rs.8,000/- between wife and daughter of petitioner. No material is placed to show that petitioner is incapable of paying the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. Admittedly, the respondents are staying in Bhadravathi town. Petitioner’s daughter is aged about 16 years. Thus, maintenance of Rs.8,000/- between two adult members residing in Bhadravathi town, in the opinion of this court, is not exorbitant.
Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 for does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ