1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1104/2016
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 9/2016
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8573/2016
IN CRL.RP.1104/2016
BETWEEN
Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
S/o. Late Subbanna,
Aged about 46 years,
Resident at No.174/5A,
10th Cross, 3rd Block,
Thyagarajanagara,
Bangalore-560013.
…Petitioner
(Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna, Party-in-Person)
AND
Ms. Veena Maravanthe,
W/o. Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
Aged about 46 years,
Resident at No.117, 1st Floor,
3rd Main, 6th Block,
Banashankari III Stage,
Bangalore-560085.
…Respondent
2
(By Sri. P.P.Hegde, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to
set aside the order passed by Additional City Civil Judge
and Sessions Judge, (CCH-60) in Crl.A.No.1291/2014
order dated 18.11.2015 directing the petitioner to pay
maintenance of Rs.75,000/- P.M to the respondent from
the date of the order and also directed to pay monthly rent
of Rs.20,000/- for the residence of the respondent and
etc.,
IN CRL.RP. 9/2016
BETWEEN
Smt. Veena Maravanthe,
W/o. Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
Aged about 44 years,
Resident at No.117, 1st Floor,
3rd Main, 6th Block,
Banashankari III Stage,
Bangalore-560085.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. P.P.Hegde, Advocate)
AND
1. Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
S/o. Late Subbanna,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at 3161 N Hill Road,
APT-5, Porsmouth,
OHIO-45662
USA.
And also at
Department of Anaestheology
3
Southern OHIO Medical Centre/
SOMC Medical Care Foundation Inc.
#1805, 27th Street, Portsmouth
OHIO-45662-2640
USA.
2. Smt. Saraswathi
W/o. Late Subbanna,
Aged about 66 years
Permanent Address of
Both the Respondents
Resident at No.174/5A,
10th Cross, 3rd Block,
Thyagarajanagara,
Bengaluru-560028.
…Respondents
(Dr.Shashidhar Subbanna, Party-in-Person)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to
modify the judgment dated 18.11.2015 passed by the LX
Additional City Civil and Session Judge, (CCH-61),
Bangalore in Crl.A.No.1291/2014 and order dated
13.11.2014 passed by the 4th MMTC, Bangalore, in
Crl.Misc.No.117/2011 and by enhancing the quantum of
compensation form Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) to
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Rupees) and grant payment
of monthly maintenance form the date of petition.
IN CRL.P.8573/2016
BETWEEN
Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
S/o. Late Subbanna,
Aged about 46 years,
4
Resident at No.174/5A,
10th Cross, 3rd Block,
Thyagarajanagara,
Bangalore-560013.
…Petitioner
(Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna, Party-in-Person)
AND
Ms. Veena Maravanthe,
W/o. Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
Aged about 46 years,
Resident at No.117, 1st Floor,
3rd Main, 6th Block,
Banashankari III Stage,
Bangalore-560085.
…Respondent
(By Sri. P.P.Hegde, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the entire
proceedings in C.Misc.No.78/2016 of MMTC-IV, Bengaluru,
for the offence punishable under Section 125(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
These Petitions coming on for hearing this day, the
Court made the following : –
ORDER
Given the background that has culminated into these
proceedings, the marriage between Shashidhara Subbanna
(hereinafter referred to as ‘husband’) and Veena
5
Maravanthe (referred to as ‘wife’) took place on 23.4.2008
at Bengaluru and it was registered on the same day in the
office of Marriage Officer, Basavanaugudi, Bengaluru. The
husband was employed at USA; he is a medical doctor and
holds three post graduate degrees (MD) and was working
as anesthesiologist. The wife is also a post graduate, an
M.Sc (Physics). A few days after the marriage, the
husband went to USA and the wife joined him later, she
left India on 3.5.2008 with her father-in-law and mother-
in-law. According to the wife, when she was taken to
Oralado by the husband for honey moon, the latter taunted
her taking objections that the arrangements made in the
marriage were not up to mark and that he did not get
dowry to his expectation. He expressed unwillingness
about the way the marriage was performed. Thereafter,
bickerings started between them. There was mudslinging
from either side. On 16.8.2008, the husband got his
Green Card at USA, but there is an allegation by the wife
that he did not process for obtaining Green Card for her.
Since her Visa period was coming to an end, she had to
6
return to Bengaluru. After her return to India, she was not
allowed to reside with her mother-in-law and therefore she
was forced to take shelter in the houses of her sister and
brother. Husband visited India in July 2009; when wife
went to live with him, she was abused badly for the reason
that she did not bring diamond ear studs. He avoided his
wife. By that time she was pregnant, she gave birth to a
baby girl on 2.9.2009. The baby was named Shravya. It
is alleged that the husband avoided his wife and used to
say that he did not want his wife and child and he wanted
divorce. He instituted proceedings for divorce in
MC.3543/2009 in the Family Court at Bengaluru.
2. The wife approached women police station,
Basavanagudi and as a result, an FIR for the offences
punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act came to be registered against the
husband, his father and mother. The police laid charge
sheet in the Court of II ACMM, Bengaluru, and
7
consequently, the husband faced prosecution in CC
17019/2011.
3. The wife also instituted another proceeding under
Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short) which was registered as
C.Misc.99/2010. She sought protection order under
Section 18, residential order under Section 19 and interim
maintenance of Rs.50,000/- for herself and Rs.20,000/- for
her child under Section 20 and compensation of Rs.One
crore under Section 22 of the Act.
4. Petition for divorce filed by the husband was
dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned ACMM, in CC
17019/2011, convicted the husband and his mother for the
offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They both preferred
an appeal to the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal
503/2013. The Sessions Court dismissed their appeal and
aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court in the
appeal, the husband and his mother have preferred
8
Criminal Revision Petitions before this Court in Crl.RPs
1612/2016 and 1613/2016.
5. The VIII ACMM, before whom C.Misc.799/2010, a
proceeding under the provisions of the Act was pending,
passed an order on 7.4.2010 awarding interim
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife, who preferred an
appeal to the Sessions Court seeking enhancement of
interim maintenance. The Sessions Court allowed the
appeal in part, and enhanced the interim maintenance
from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. Thereafter, the petition
C.Mis.799/2010 was transferred to another Court i.e., IV
ACMM where the case was numbered as Cr.Mis.117/2011,
and on 13.11.2014, the said Court partly allowed the
petition and directed the husband to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.40,000/- to the wife from the date of
order, Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and
Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by this
order, the wife preferred an appeal Crl.A.1291/2014 before
the Sessions Court. The husband did not appear before
9
the Sessions Court though the notice was said to have
been served on him. On 18.11.2015, the Sessions Judge
allowed the appeal in part and modified the order by
enhancing the maintenance to Rs.75,000/- from
Rs.40,000/- and further directed to pay Rs.20,000/-
towards rent for the residence of wife, but it did not modify
the compensation amount and the date from which the
said sums are payable. Therefore, the wife has preferred
Criminal Revision Petition 9/2016 seeking modification of
the judgment dated 18.11.2015 of the Sessions Court; she
has sought compensation to be enhanced to
Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the monthly maintenance to be paid
from the date of petition.
6. The husband, aggrieved by the judgment of the
Sessions Court in the appeal, has preferred Criminal
Revision Petition 1104/2016 and has sought for setting
aside the said judgment and reconsideration of the same
by the Sessions Court.
10
7. The husband has preferred another Criminal
Revision Petition 8573/2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
After Crl.Mis.117/2011 came to be allowed partly, since
the husband failed to pay monthly maintenance of
Rs.40,000/- to the wife; she filed a petition
Crl.Mis.225/2014 under Section 31 of the Act. In the said
petition, warrant was issued against the husband and he
was committed to Civil Prison vide order dated 20.2.2016.
The husband challenged the very registration of petition
under Section 31 of the Act by filing Criminal Appeal
453/2016 before the Sessions Court. On 16.9.2016, the
Sessions Court allowed the appeal and dismissed
Crl.Mis.225/2014. It appears that the wife initiated one
more proceeding under Section 125 (3) of Criminal
Procedure Code, for a direction to the husband to pay a
sum of Rs.21,79,830/- being arrears of maintenance and
the rent, ordered in Crl.Misc.117/2011. The husband has
sought quashing of this proceeding.
11
8. In regard to petition filed by the wife,
Crl.Misc.117/2011 under Section 12 of the Act for the
various reliefs, the learned Magistrate has recorded a
finding that since the husband and his mother were
convicted in C.C.17019/2011 for the offences punishable
under Section 498(A) and Sections 3 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, the wife’s allegation that she was
subjected to domestic violence as defined under Section 3
(b) of the Act would stand established. Secondly, when
the wife wanted to have a child, the husband, being a
doctor and having knowledge of high risk involved in 38
years old woman getting conceived, did not agree for
begetting a child. He gave the reasons that he wanted
financial stability, that the medical insurance that he had
made did not cover pregnancy of the wife and in case she
would conceive, it would adversely affect his finances.
Then, the wife also went to USA, but she had to return to
India, the reason being that the husband did not evince
interest in getting her VISA extended although he secured
a Green Card of that country. The wife had to return to
12
India, and the Magistrate has found that the wife had a
compelling reason to return to India and she did not
voluntarily desert her husband.
9. Yet another reason noticed by the Magistrate is
wife’s failure to clear TOFEL/GRE examination. On this
aspect also, there are allegations from either side, but the
Magistrate has observed that the conduct of the husband,
even before the marriage, was as such that he put certain
conditions on his wife that she should clear TOFEL/GRE
examination, study further in USA and secure an
employment in USA for attaining financial security. The
wife wrote the examination, but did not qualify and in this
regard the Magistrate has observed a contradictory stand
taken by the husband and arrived at a conclusion that the
marriage between them was a conditional one, which is
not recognized.
10. The other conduct of the husband has also been
observed by the Magistrate. He insisted on his wife to
obtain B1 Visitor VISA so that she could deliver a baby in
13
USA to see that the child would naturally acquire
citizenship of USA. But, the wife wanted to deliver child in
India as she had her close relatives and knew the doctors
here. He did not respect her feelings and expected his
wife to go to India alone and obtain VISA to see that she
would deliver a child at USA. It has been held by the
Magistrate that the husband has failed to prove that he
helped his wife obtain B1 VISA, and this was an instance of
badly treating a wife during her pregnancy period. The
husband, it is held, did not show interest to see the child.
Noticing these instances being proved, the learned
Magistrate has held that the wife has been able to prove
that she was emotionally and mentally abused by the
husband and that the wife and child were neglected by
him. However the other allegations that her in laws did
not allow her inside their house when she went there along
with the child, that the husband had relationship with a
woman by name Lesli at USA and that the accident that
took place at Sringeri resulting in her sustaining fracture of
14
thigh bone was at the instance of the husband, are all not
proved.
11. Having given findings as above with regard to
domestic violence, the learned Magistrate, with regard to
husband’s income has taken note of the fact that he was
working at SOMC Hospital, USA, and his present
unemployment and his other liabilities towards house
mortgage, insurance, tax etc., really did not matter as he
was a highly qualified doctor and he would get an
employment either at USA or India. In this back ground
the Magistrate partly allowed the petition under Section 12
of the Act and directed the husband to pay maintenance of
Rs. 40,000/- to the wife, bear educational and medical
expenses of the child and pay a further sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/-
towards litigation expenses.
12. The Learned Sessions Judge, in the appeal filed
by the wife, took note of husband’s net pay at USA being
USD52012.66, that the husband did not challenge the
15
Magistrate’s order and also having regard to status of the
parties, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs.75,000/-
per month from Rs.40,000/- and further directed to pay
monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- for the residence of the wife.
The Sessions Judge did not enhance the compensation
amount. It requires to be mentioned here that the
husband and his mother did not contest this appeal.
13. I have heard the arguments of Sri Shashidhar
Subbanna (husband) who appeared in person and Sri
P.P.Hegde, the learned counsel for the wife.
14. It is the argument of Sri Shashidhar Subbanna
that he did not come to know about Crl.A.1291/2014 since
no notice was served on him. The learned Sessions Judge,
in the said appeal enhanced the compensation to
Rs.75,000/- per month besides directing him to pay
Rs.20,000/- every month for the residence of his wife and
daughter. His argument is that the Sessions Court has not
assigned any reason for exorbitant enhancement. It
appears that the Sessions Court has misdirected itself to
16
arrive at a conclusion that he is still working in USA, but
the fact is otherwise; the circumstances that arose due to
many cases filed against him and his mother by his wife
compelled him to tender resignation to his employment to
avoid his termination. He was not at all employed at USA
to consider his income in US dollars. He tries to
emphasize that he was unemployed at that time. With
regard to his present status of his employment, he
submitted that he is working in a private Medical College
as a teaching faculty and is getting salary around
Rs.70,000/- per month. Therefore, it was his argument,
that given an opportunity, he will prove his present
financial position so that the Court can come to a just
decision for determining the maintenance amount. For
this purpose he seeks remand of the appeal to the Court of
Sessions Judge.
14.1. He argued further that before their marriage
took place his wife was also working, she is a Post
Graduate in M.Sc., (Physics) and she too is capable of
17
earning. This factor has not been considered by both the
Courts below. In fact he wanted his wife to write some
qualifying examination to see that she would secure an
employment at USA; and he arranged for everything for
her to prepare for examinations, but she did not pass
those examinations, and for this he was not responsible.
Even now she can work and earn money; her attitude to
exploit him in the guise of obtaining maintenance should
never be encouraged. Though he admits that he has
responsibility to provide maintenance, but it has to be
determined in the background of her working and earning
capacity.
14.2. With regard to enhancement of compensation
to Rs.1,00,00,000/- as has been sought by the wife, his
argument is that this shows her greediness towards money
and intention to make him a bankrupt. There are no
reasons to enhance the compensation. Further, in regard
to his Revision Petition 8573/2016 is concerned, he argued
that petition filed by his wife under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C
18
for enforcing the order of maintenance is not maintainable.
The Magistrate has ordered for payment of maintenance
under the provisions of the Act, it can be enforced only
under Section 31 of the said Act. His wife instituted
proceedings in Crl.Mis.225/2014 under that Section and he
preferred an appeal 453/2016 before the Sessions Court
challenging the registration of petition under Section 31 of
the Act. His appeal was allowed and with this any action
to be taken for recovery of maintenance amount due
attained finality. Therefore, another proceeding under
Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. He argued for
quashing the proceedings in Crl.Mis.78/2016 initiated
under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C.
15. Sri P.P.Hegde, learned counsel for the wife
argued as follows : –
15.1. The learned Magistrate has, after appreciating
the evidence, given findings about various kinds of
domestic violence meted out on the wife by the husband.
Those findings are confirmed by the appellate Court.
19
Therefore, there are findings on facts which cannot be
disturbed. The learned Sessions Judge enhanced the
compensation to Rs.75,000/- per month keeping in mind
the actual earning of the husband at USA and his other
possessions. Husband cannot escape from providing
maintenance once domestic violence is proved. The
enhancement of monthly maintenance made by the
Sessions Judge in the appeal is based on husband’s
financial position and requirement of the wife befitting her
status. He does not dispute that wife is a Post Graduate
and working before her marriage, but his further argument
is that because of the unkind attitude of the husband; the
turmoil that she went through after the marriage and
because of the accident that she met with; she suffered
depression and is not in a position to work and earn. It
was his submission that accident took place at the instance
of the husband. For all these reasons, she sought
enhancement in maintenance that was rightly granted, but
denial of enhancement of compensation is not justifiable
and therefore the wife’s appeal needs to be allowed.
20
15.2. In regard to revision filed by the husband, the
learned counsel submitted that notice was served on the
husband. He did not appear before the appellate Court
intentionally. His only intention is to delay the proceeding
by getting the matter remanded. Absolutely there are no
grounds to allow the husband’s revision petition.
15.3. Pertaining to Criminal Petition 8573/2016, the
learned counsel argued that whenever monetary reliefs are
granted under the provisions of the Act, the same can be
enforced under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C, or otherwise the
orders of the Court go futile. He referred to Rule 6 (5) of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules,
2006. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
should fail.
16. In reply, Sri. Shashidhara Subbanna argued that
the learned Magistrate has held that the accident that took
place at Shringeri resulting in his wife being injured was
not at his instance. Absolutely there are no materials, this
ground cannot be considered for confirming the appellate
21
Court’s order of enhancing the maintenance amount and
arriving at a conclusion that his wife is not able to work.
17. I have perused the records and considered the
arguments. The following points arise for discussion : –
(i) Has the appellate Court committed an error
in enhancing maintenance to Rs.75,000/-
per month and providing Rs.20,000/- for
her residence?
(ii) Whether an order passed by the Judicial
Magistrate under Section 12 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act can be
enforced according to Section 125 (3)
Cr.P.C?
(iii) Are the proceedings in Crl.Mis.78/2016
under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. by the wife
liable to be quashed?
(iv) What order?
22
Point No. (i):-
18. Fixation of maintenance is not a matter of
mathematical certainty. The Courts have always found it a
challenging task. It is quite obvious that the aggrieved
person tries to exaggerate, and the person who is liable to
pay maintenance also makes it a point to see that
maintenance amount is fixed as far as possible at minimal.
The witnesses examined on either side are usually partisan
and therefore, it is a guess work for the Courts; endeavor
should be towards providing reasonable maintenance.
‘What is reasonable’, is again relative to the standard of
living.
19. The question becomes complicated if the
aggrieved person has source of income, or she is capable
of earning. The Courts cannot remain oblivious of this kind
of a situation, necessarily they have to be considered while
determining the monetary relief, and at the same time, in
a zeal to provide monetary reliefs, if the Courts ignore the
financial capacity of the husband, it only leads to chaos;
23
the husband being left with no other option but to face
other consequences which is not the intendment of law.
Therefore what is required is to strike a balance.
20. In this case, the learned Magistrate in para 29
of the order has observed as follows : –
“Further taking into note the earning
capacity of the respondent in USA and also the
fact that the petitioner is suffering from left
thigh bone fracture and is unemployed since
2008, but has medical insurance of
Rs.1,00,000/- for herself, I am of the opinion
that it is just and proper to direct to pay
Rs.40,000/- per month to the petitioner
towards the maintenance of herself and the
child for food, shelter/rent and other
miscellaneous expenses”.
21. Having observed above, the Magistrate also
ordered for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
When the wife questioned this order of the Magistrate, the
learned Sessions Judge considering the income of the
24
husband in US dollars and observing that the husband had
not challenged the order of the Magistrate, enhanced the
monthly maintenance to Rs.75,000/- and further directed
the husband to pay Rs.20,000/- towards rent for the
residence of the wife and her daughter.
22. The husband has seriously disputed his income
as held and considered by the Sessions Judge, his
argument was that because of frequent visits to India in
connection with litigation, such a situation as to tender
resignation arose to avoid his termination and therefore
computation of maintenance in the background of US
dollars was not correct. The Sessions Court cannot be
found fault with for not considering this aspect as the
husband did not contest the appeal filed by the wife. Be
that as it may, if the judgment of the Sessions Court in the
appeal is read, it is seen that he has not re-appreciated
the evidence. He has drawn conclusion on certain
assumptions. It is pertinent to mention here that the clear
observation of the Magistrate is that the respondent i.e,
25
husband had resigned from his job at SOMC. Therefore in
my view, the Sessions Court, being an appellate authority
is not justified in enhancing the maintenance amount to
Rs.75,000/- per month and providing Rs.20,000/- towards
rent for residence of the wife. Re-appreciation of evidence
was absolutely necessary. Point No. (i) is answered in
affirmative.
Point No. (ii):-
23. This is purely a legal issue. Section 20 (1) of
the Act reads as below : –
“20. Monetary reliefs.–(1) While
disposing of an application under sub-section
(1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct
the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet
the expenses incurred and losses suffered by
the aggrieved person and any child of the
aggrieved person as a result of the domestic
violence and such relief may include, but not
limited to,–
(a) the loss of earnings;
(b) the medical expenses;
26
(c) the loss caused due to the
destruction, damage or removal of any
property from the control of the aggrieved
person; and
(d) the 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 the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any
other law for the time being in force”.
24. Careful reading of this section indicates that a
Magistrate deciding an application under Section 12 of the
Act can also exercise power under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
25. Rule 6 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 is as follows : –
“6. Applications to the Magistrate.–
(1) Every application of the aggrieved
person under section 12 shall be in Form II or
as nearly as possible thereto.
(2) An aggrieved person may seek the
assistance of the Protection Officer in preparing
her application under sub-rule (1) and
27forwarding the same to the concerned
Magistrate.
(3) In case the aggrieved person is
illiterate, the Protection Officer shall read over
the application and explain to her the contents
thereof.
(4) The affidavit to be filed under sub-
section (2) of section 23 shall be filed in Form
III.
(5) The applications under section 12
shall be dealt with and the orders enforced in
the same manner laid down under section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974)”.
26. Therefore, from the above, it becomes amply
clear that whenever an order under Section 20 or 22, or
both is passed or any other relief that can be applied for
under Section 12 of the Act is granted, it can be enforced
in the manner laid down in Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C.
Section 31 of the Act is a penal provision for breach of
protection order. Any order passed by the Magistrate must
be capable of enforcement or otherwise the aggrieved
28
person will be deprived of justice. Point No. (ii) is
therefore answered in affirmative.
Point No. (iii):-
27. In view of discussion on point No. (ii), the
proceeding initiated by the wife in Crl.Misc.No. 78/2016
under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed. But,
the Magistrate is at liberty to examine the enforceability of
the order in the light of first proviso to Section 125 (3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Point No. (iv):-
28. While discussing point No. (i), it has been
observed that enhancement of maintenance made by the
Sessions Court does not stand to reason. When
Crl.A.1291/2014 was filed, there was no appeal by the
husband challenging the order of the Magistrate in Civil
Misc.117/2011. But subsequently he preferred an appeal
which is registered as Crl.A.454/2016. In this appeal, he
has urged the grounds that he contended while arguing
29
before me. It is also one of his main contentions that he
was not served with notice in Crl.A.1291/2014. It is not
necessary to examine the truth in his contention. As his
appeal is still under consideration, I am of the opinion that
the judgment of the Sessions Court in Crl.A.1291/2014 can
be set aside in entirety to enable the Sessions Court to
decide both the appeals together.
29. Before concluding, I find it absolutely essential
to observe here that the husband and the wife are well
qualified. If they have a sense of feeling that they are
really educated, they must keep aside their differences.
They have a child. Degrees conferred by the Universities
are not the yardsticks to decide whether one is educated in
real sense or not. If one does not know how to live in
society and lead a civilized life, they are only literates, but
not educated. The parties here should forget their ego at
least for the sake of their daughter.
30. From this discussion, I proceed to pass the
following order : –
30
(i) Criminal Revision Petition No. 9/2016 is
dismissed.
(ii) Criminal Revision Petition No. 1104/2016 is
allowed, the judgment dated 18.11.2015 in
Crl.A.No.1291/2014 is set aside.
(iii) Crl.A.No. 1291/2014 is restored to the file of
Appellate Court, which shall decide this appeal
and Crl.A.454/2016 together in accordance
with law.
(iv) The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge
shall take appropriate steps to post the said
two appeals to the same Court.
(v) Criminal Petition No. 8573/2016 is dismissed,
however the Magistrate is at liberty to
examine the maintainability of
Crl.Mis.78/2016 in the light of the first proviso
to Section 125 (3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(vi) The Appellate Court shall expedite the
disposal of the two appeals.
(vii) The parties shall appear before the Court
where Crl.A.454/2016 is pending on
27.11.2018.(viii) Till disposal of the appeals, the husband
Dr.Shashidhar Subbanna shall pay regularly to
31his wife maintenance amount as determined
by the learned Magistrate in Crl. Misc. No.
117/2011 and bear all the expenses of his
daughter.Sd/-
JUDGE
After pronouncement of judgment, the learned
counsel for the wife makes a submission that the husband
be directed to deposit at least Rs.10,00,000/- immediately
as the wife is in need of money and that the daughter has
to undergo eye surgery. He also submitted that the
husband has not at all deposited a single pie after disposal
of the case by the learned Magistrate.
With regard to this submission, it has to be stated
that in the light of the direction being already given to the
husband in the judgment that he should pay maintenance
to the wife and bear all the expenses of his daughter, a
separate direction is not necessary. If he fails, necessary
32action can be taken by the wife as is permissible in law.
However, if the daughter has to undergo eye surgery, the
need for that purpose can be considered and for the time
being the husband may be directed to deposit an amount
of Rs.3,00,000/- in the Appellate Court in
Crl.A.1291/2014. If the surgery expenses exceeds
Rs.3,00,000/-, the wife is at liberty to make an appropriate
application before the Appellate Court. The husband shall
take this matter seriously and make payment instead of
taking an obstinate stand preferring the jail to making
payment. As observed above, the husband is directed to
deposit the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Appellate
Court within four weeks from today in relation to
Crl.A.1291/2014 and after such deposit, the Appellate
Court shall release that amount in favour of the wife.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ckl/sd