IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8344 OF 2017
S/o Late Kalinganaika
Aged about 54 years
101, Hyrige Village
Kasaba Hobli, H.D.Kote Taluk
Mysuru District-571114. …Petitioner
[By:Smt.Suma Kedilaya, Advocate
for Sri V.Padmanabha Kedilaya, Advocate]
Aged about 44 years.
Aged about 18 years.
Both are residents of Hyrige Village
Kasaba Hobli, H.D.Kote Taluk 571114. …Respondents
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.308/2014 as per order dated
11.8.2017 on the file of VIII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Mysore, sitting at Hunsur confirming the
order in Crl.Misc.No.194/2008 on 11.7.2014 before Civil
Judge and J.M.F.C., H.D.Kote.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this
day, the Court made the following:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
2. The petitioner has called in question the
order dated 11.7.2014 passed in Crl.Mis.No.194/2008
Civil Judge, H.D.Kote, which is confirmed by the VIII
Addl. District Sessions Court, Mysuru, sitting at
Hunsur, by its order dated 11.8.2017 in
3. For the purpose of convenience and easy
understanding, the ranks of the parties as per the
ranks in the Trial Court is retained.
4. The petitioners, by name Smt.Puttalakshmi
and another have filed this petition under Section 125
of Cr.P.C. against the respondent, Sri Kambanaika,
seeking maintenance of `1000/- per month. The
petitioner No.1 claimed that she is the legally wedded
wife of respondent and petitioner No.2 is the daughter
born to their wedlock. On further allegation that the
respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the
petitioners and that, they have no other source to
maintain themselves, on these pleadings, they
approached the Trial Court for grant of maintenance.
5. In response to the Court summons, the
respondent appeared before the Court and he denied
the relationship and also denied the physical and
mental harassment given to the petitioner No.1. On
the basis of rival contentions of the parties, the Trial
Court has framed the following points for
(1) Whether the petitioner proves that she is
the legally wedded wife of the
(2) Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent willfully refused and
neglected to maintain her and driven out
of the house of the respondent?
Answering these two points in the affirmative, the
Trial Court granted maintenance of `1,000/- per
month to each of the petitioners and an amount of
`5,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. The petitioner got herself examined as
PW1. In order to prove the relationship, she has
produced Exhibits-P1 to P6, viz., P1-School Certificate,
P2 and P3-RTCs, P4-Election I.D. card, P5-School
Certificate and P6-Ration Card.
7. The respondent also examined himself as
RW1 and examined one more witness, RW2 and
produced the documents, viz., Exs.R1 R2 – Election
I.D. Card, Ex.R3 R4 – Aadhar Card, Ex.R5 – Ration
Card and Ex.R6 – School Admission extract.
8. These documents have been meticulously
considered by the Trial Court. On considering the oral
and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court
has come to the conclusion that the petitioner No.1
has established the relationship between herself and
the respondent and further, the paternity of the child.
The Trial Court has accepted the corroborative
materials from the surrounding circumstances.
Considering the oral and documentary evidence, very
particularly, it has noted that there is no person by
name Kambanaika in the said Village, except the
respondent. Therefore, the Court has come to the
conclusion that the name found on Exs.P1 to P6, i.e.
Kambanaika is the husband of petitioner No.1 and
father of petitioner No.2. The Court has also
considered the documents produced by the
respondent and on appreciation of the factual aspects
has come to such a conclusion.
9. Being aggrieved by the above said order,
the respondent – husband preferred a revision petition
in Crl.R.P.No.308/2014 before the VIII Additional
District Sessions Court at Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur.
The Revisional Court also re-appreciated after
reconsidering the documentary and oral evidence and
arrived at a conclusion as that of the Trial Court.
10. Further, the Revisional Court has also relied
upon the various decisions of Apex Court, particularly,
the decision reported in (1999) 7 SCC 675 in the
case of DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATI v. BIDYUT
PRAVADIXIT AND ANOTHER, wherein, the Apex Court
has observed that, on the relationship between the
parties, a finding can be given by the Criminal Court
tentatively, as the proceedings are summary in nature
and final determination of the relationship between
the parties has to be decided by the Civil Court, if the
party approaches the Civil Court.
11. Therefore, looking to the above set of facts
and circumstances of the case and the legal aspect
discussed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court,
where both Courts have given a finding on the basis of
factual aspects of the case, the concurrent findings on
facts by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court
cannot be interfered with while exercising the powers
opinion given to the Courts, subject to any decision
that may be rendered by the Civil Court with regard to
the relationship between the parties.
12. Therefore, I do not find any strong reason
to interfere with the orders impugned in this petition.
However, it is made clear that the petitioner herein is
at liberty to file an appropriate civil suit for declaration
that the respondent No.1 is not his wife and
respondent No.2 is not his child. If he succeeds in the
civil suit, on the basis of such decree, he can move
the Criminal Court for cancellation or modification of
the maintenance order of the Trial Court as affirmed
by the Revisional Court.
13. With these observations, I proceed to pass
‘Petition is dismissed.’
14. In view of the dismissal of the criminal
petition, I.A.No.2/17 for stay also stands dismissed.