IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100821/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI.TULASAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA DASAR
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: ARMY SERVICE,
R/O: WAJJARMATTI VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.: VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.INDRAVVA W/O TULASAPPA DASAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KERUR VILLAGE,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
—
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
23.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO. 54 OF 2015 IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION AND THE
ORDER DATED 15.04.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
PRL. JMFC BADAMI IN CRL. MISC. NO. 304 OF 2012 GRANTING
MAINTENANCE OF RS. 7,000/- PER MONTH BY ALLOWING THIS
CRIMINAL PETITION AND DISMISS THE MAINTENANCE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the
petitioner/husband being aggrieved by the order dated
23.01.2017 passed by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Criminal Revision Petition
No.54/2015, whereunder the order dated 15.04.2015
passed by the Principal JMFC, Badami in Criminal
Misc. No.304/2012 granting the maintenance of
Rs.7,000/- per month has been partly allowed and the
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- has been granted.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The facts leading to the case for filing the
petition before the trial Court is that, the respondent-
wife is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. They led
marital life for a period of ten years. As the petitioner
got employment in the military after marriage, he joined
:3:
the services. But thereafter he started ill-treating and
harassing the petitioner for bringing the dowry. Earlier
the respondent-wife filed Criminal Misc.No.258/2011
claiming maintenance. The said matter was ended in
compromise. Thereafter, again the petitioner did not
improve his conduct and neglected and refused to
maintain the respondent. As such, she filed Criminal
Misc.No.304/2012 claiming maintenance.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner/husband that the learned Magistrate
and the learned District Judge have not properly
appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case
that, during the course of cross-examination, PW1 and
PW2 have admitted that the respondent herself has
deserted the petitioner by staying out from the
matrimonial house. The said aspect has not been
properly considered and appreciated by the Court
below. It is his further contention that the petitioner
was ever ready and willing to take her back. She herself
:4:
was separately residing. It is his further submission
that the learned Magistrate has not given sufficient
opportunity to defend the case of the petitioner by
leading his evidence as he is working as Army Jawan in
the Military and under these circumstances, the matter
may be remitted back to the Court below for giving full
opportunity to the petitioner. It is his further
contention that the petitioner has to maintain his
parents and he is getting a salary of Rs.29,000/- p.m.
and after deduction his gross salary is Rs.20,000/- p.m.
and hence the maintenance awarded to the extent of
Rs.5,000/- is on the higher side and the same requires
to be reduced. On these grounds he prayed to allow the
petition and to set aside the impugned order.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-wife vehemently argued and submitted that,
earlier the respondent filed Crl.Misc.No.258/2011 and
the said matter was compromised and in the said
compromise, the petitioner agreed that he will not give
:5:
any ill-treatment to the respondent in future and as
such, the matter was compromised. But thereafter
again he continued his old attitude and he started ill-
treating and neglected her without providing any
maintenance and as such, the present petition came to
be filed. It is his further submission that, the
petitioner/husband has filed the petition for restitution
of conjugal rights and the same came to be dismissed.
Subsequently, he has filed a divorce petition and that
also came to be dismissed. All these attitudes clearly
goes to show that he was never intending to take her
back and has not provided any maintenance. It is his
further submission that the Court below after
considering the material on record and the salary of the
petitioner/husband awarded the maintenance of
Rs.7,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred
the criminal revision petition and the criminal revision
petition was partly allowed and an amount of
Rs.5,000/- has been granted and as such, the amount
:6:
is reasonable which is required for the purpose of
maintenance of respondent – wife. The petitioner has
not made out any good grounds to interfere with the
orders of the both the Courts below and the same may
be confirmed by dismissing the present petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through
the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the records, in order
to prove the case of the respondent-wife, she got herself
examined as PW1 and also got examined two more
witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to
P4. It is not in dispute that earlier criminal Misc.
No.258/2011 was filed by the respondent-wife and the
same was ended in compromise and the records shows
that the petitioner-husband agreed in the said
compromise petition that he will not give ill-treatment to
the petitioner in future. That itself clearly goes to show
:7:
that earlier also there was ill-treatment and cruelty
meted out to the respondent-wife by the petitioner-
husband. It is her specific contention that the
petitioner-husband has started ill-treating and
harassing her for demand of dowry and he has
neglected her to maintain when she was staying in her
parental house. The evidence of PW3 is corroborated
with the evidence of PW1. Though in the compromise
she has agreed to reside along with the petitioner-
husband, but subsequently he has filed the petition for
restitution of conjugal rights as well as petition for
divorce and the same were came to be dismissed. It is
clearly goes to show that the petitioner-husband was
not interested to take her back and to lead the marital
life.
8. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that PW1 and PW2
have admitted in the cross-examination regarding the
fact that, in the compromise she has agreed to reside
:8:
with the petitioner-husband and she is residing
separately in the parental house. But if the entire
records are perused in its entirety, only because of the
ill-treatment and harassment caused by the petitioner-
husband that she is residing in the parental house and
even it is admitted fact that divorce petition has also
been filed by the petitioner-husband. When they filed
the divorce petition, the contention of the petitioner-
husband that he was willing to join with the
respondent-wife and is ready to take her back, cannot
be believed.
9. Be that as it may. Even as could be seen
from the records, it is an admitted fact that the
petitioner-husband is working in the Military and he is
drawing a salary of Rs.29,000/- pm. In this behalf,
Ex.P4 – Salary certificate has been also produced and
after deduction he is getting a net salary of Rs.24,000/-
p.m. and he is also having landed properties and other
income. By keeping in view the said facts and
:9:
circumstances, the Revisional Court has reduced the
maintenance only to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month
from the date of petition. I feel that the amount granted
by the learned District Judge appears to be just and
proper by taking into consideration all the material
which has been placed on record. There is no such
evidence to discard the evidence of PW1 and to show
that she herself has refused to live along with the
petitioner-husband.
10. Looking form any angle the petitioner has
not made out any good grounds to interfere with the
orders passed by the Courts below. The present
revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab