IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.453 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVAKUMAR B.R. S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O. BUKKAPATNA VILLAGE BUKKAPATNA HOBLI SIRA TALUK – 572 137 TUMKUR DISTRICT … PETITIONER (BY SHRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. DODDA AGRAHARA VILLAGE BUKKAPATNA HOBLI SIRA TALUK – 572 137 TUMKUR DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU PASSED IN CRL.REV.P.NO.123/2014 AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. Respondent-wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court by order dated 25.08.2007 in C.Misc.No.43/2007 has directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.750/-. Subsequently, petitioner filed C.Misc.No.202/2011 to modify the earlier order on the ground that respondent was living an adulterous life and that he does not have sufficient means to make payment. Learned Trial judge, on appreciation of evidence, has recorded in Paragraph No.16 of the order that there is no material to substantiate petitioners’ contentions.
3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred Crl.RP.No.123/2014 before the learned Sessions Judge, who by order dated 18.01.2017, confirmed the view taken by the learned Trial Judge and dismissed the petition. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has urged the very same two grounds before this Court also. Firstly that respondent was living an adulterous life and secondly that petitioner is a handicapped person and therefore, unable to pay the amount directed by the Trial Court. Relation between the petitioner and respondent is not in dispute. Learned Trial judge has recorded that no proof was placed by the petitioner to prove the contentions urged by him.
5. Further, keeping in view the present cost of living, the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Judge does not call for interference.
6. Hence, I find no ground to interfere by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
7. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV