SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dr.Shashidhar Subbanna vs Ms Veena Maravanthe on 25 October, 2018

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
27

forwarding 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
31

his 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
32

action 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation