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