-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.743 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Sri. N. Govindaraju
S/o Narayana Raju
Aged about 46 Years
Resident of No.30/2
Kamadhenu Nilaya
Swimming Pool Extension
Sudeendra Nagar, 7th Cross
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru – 560 003.
… Petitioner
(By Sri. Dayalu K. N, Adv.)

AND:

1. Smt. Vagdevi
D/o late Doddaraju
W/o N. Govindaraju
Aged about 42 Years

2. Master Shashnk G
S/o N. Govindaraju
Aged about 10 Years
Since Minor Represented by his
Mother Smt. Vagdevi
-2-

Both are r/at KSRTC Colony
Near APS School, Ward No.23,
Hosur Road, Anekal Town,
Bengaluru District – 562106. …Respondents

(By Sri Chandrashekar P Patil, Advocate)

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 r/w 401 of SectionCr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated
05.02.2019 passed in C.Misc.No.69/2019 on the file of
Principal Civil Judge JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural
District.

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
Admission, this day the Court made the following:-

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband

challenging the order dated 5.2.2019 passed in Crl. Misc.

No.69/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and

JMFC, Anekal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel for the first respondent-wife.

3. The case of the respondent-wife is that, the

marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent

was solemnized on 25.02.2001. Out of the wedlock, a male
-3-

child was born on 12.9.2008. It is further contended that

the dowry was given at the time of marriage to the

petitioner and subsequently, petitioner-husband started

giving physical and mental torture to the 1st respondent

demanding further dowry. A police complaint was also

registered in this regard at Anekal police station.

Thereafter, again she joined the petitioner-husband. But

the harassment and ill-treatment continued and as such,

she left her matrimonial house and another complaint was

registered against the petitioner before Vyalikaval police

station for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and

Section506 of IPC, which is pending in C.C.No.25694/2017. It is

further contended that petitioner-husband is having

sufficient source of income. The respondents are residing

in a rented house and second respondent is studying in 5th

standard and respondent-wife is not able to pay even the

fees of the second respondent and now she is working as a

teacher on a temporary basis. On these grounds, she has

prayed for monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- before the
-4-

Court below. Application was also filed for grant of interim

maintenance. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has

granted monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. Being

aggrieved by the same, petitioner-husband is before this

Court.

4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that without service of notice and without

giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned

order has been passed, as such, the same is liable to be set

aside. It is his further submission that the principles of

natural justice have not been followed before passing the

order. Petitioner is not having sufficient source of income

and the amount awarded to the extent of Rs.5,000/- is on

the higher side. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the

petition and to set aside the impugned order.

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the first

respondent-wife vehemently argued and submitted that

second respondent is studying in 5th standard and in order
-5-

to pay the fees and other incidental charges, the amount

granted by the Court below is on the lower side. It is his

further submission that the Court below by exercising the

power conferred on it has granted the interim maintenance

of Rs.5,000/-. There are no grounds to interfere with the

order of the trial Court and it deserves to be confirmed. On

these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner-husband that the Court below without giving

notice to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order by

violating the principles of natural justice. But, it is well

settled proposition of law as held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court and this Court in catena of decisions that the Court

below is having discretionary power to grant interim

maintenance, if such application has been filed, in order to
-6-

avoid destitution and hardship which would be caused to

the respondent-wife and her child.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the interim maintenance granted is on the

higher side. On the contrary, it is the contention of the

learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent-

wife is doing part time job as teacher and the income she is

getting is not sufficient to meet the day to day expenses

including the expenses of the child. However, the matter is

to be heard and decided on merits before the Court below.

9. Keeping open all the contentions to be urged before

the Court below, I am of the considered opinion that, if

petitioner-husband is directed to pay a monthly interim

maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month till final adjudication

of the dispute, it would meet the ends of justice.

10. In that light, petition is partly allowed. The

impugned order dated 5.2.2019 passed in

Crl.Misc.No.69/2019 is modified and petitioner-husband is
-7-

directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per

month from today till the disposal of the petition before the

Court below.

I.A.No.3/2019 filed for vacating stay does not survive

for consideration. Hence, the same is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp