1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8344 OF 2017

Between:

Kambanaika
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]
And:

1. Puttalakshmi
W/o Kambanaika
Aged about 44 years.

2. Nagarathna
D/o Kambanaika
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:
2

ORDER

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

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. passed by the Court of

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

Crl.R.P.No.308/2014.

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
3

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

consideration:-

(1) Whether the petitioner proves that she is
the legally wedded wife of the
respondent?

(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
4

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
5

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.
6

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

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is only a tentative

opinion given to the Courts, subject to any decision
7

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

the following:-

‘Petition is dismissed.’

14. In view of the dismissal of the criminal

petition, I.A.No.2/17 for stay also stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE
VGR