IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE *26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6782 /2016 BETWEEN:
T.R.Abdul Khader S/o Late T.S.Abdul Rasheed Saheb, Aged about 33 years, R/a – No.42, Rahnath Mahal, Anand Nagar, Tumkur District – 572 101.
(By Sri.M.Shashidhara, Advocate) AND:
Abdul Rasheed @ Abyan S/o T.R.Abdul Khadar, Aged about 03 years, Syeda Hajira Kaunain, Since minor represented by his mother, R/at No.23, 2nd Cross, Williams Town, Benson Town Post, Bengaluru City – 560 046.
(By Sri.Zakir Hussain, Advocate) ... Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in Criminal Misc. No.3/2016 for offences under Sections 31 of Protection of *Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 25.09.2019 Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 R/w 125(3) of Cr.P.C which is pending on the file of Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court III at Bangalore.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
2. The impugned order is passed under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the ‘Act’) 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on various decisions which deal with the jurisdiction of the Court to award maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. None of these decisions are applicable to the facts of the case. The petitioner has not produced the copy of the petition filed before the Court, but reading of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has sought reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act. Section 18 deals with Protection order, Section 19 deals with Residence order, Section 20 deals with Monetary relief, Section 21 deals with Custody orders and Section 22 deals with Compensation orders.
4. Under Section 20 of the Act, the learned Magistrate is empowered to grant monetary relief which are not limited to the loss of earnings, medical expenses, loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person, maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C or any other law for the time being in force.
5. The impugned order having been passed within the lawful jurisdiction vested with the learned Magistrate, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has challenged the order dated 08.08.2016 in Crl.Mis.No.3/2016. Even in this regard except the order sheet in Crl.Mis.No.3/2016 no other material is produced before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now produced the certified copy of the order in Crl.Mis.No.252/2014 which discloses that by order dated 01.09.2015, the petitioner herein is directed to bear all expenses of the 2nd petitioner therein, namely, the minor son of petitioner No.1, till he attained majority. By virtue of this order, the petitioner is liable to bear all expenses of 2nd petitioner, until he attains majority. The prayer sought in the instant petition reads as under:
“Wherefore, the above named petitioner most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings in Criminal Misc. No.3/2016 for offences under Sections 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 R/w 125(3) of Cr.P.C which is pending on the file of Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court III at Bangalore, in the ends of justice”.
Since the order dated 01.09.2015 in Crl.Mis. No.252/2014 is not under challenge, petitioner is bound to comply with the said order.
7. However, on going through the memo of calculation filed by the respondent before the trial Court, it is noticed that the respondent has claimed the arrears at the rate of Rs.15,000/- p.m which is contrary to the order passed by the Court in Crl.Misc.252/2014. As per the said order, the respondent is entitled to claim only the actual expenses. The respondent has not claimed the actual expenses. Under the said circumstances, the learned Magistrate could not have accepted the memo of calculation filed by the respondent and could not have straightaway issued the FLW against the petitioner without passing any orders on the said memo. To this extent, petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. FLW issued against the petitioner dated 08.08.2015 is set aside.
Matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to consider the Memo of Calculation filed by the respondent afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 25-09-2019 without any further notice.
Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order.
Sd/- JUDGE UN/TSN