Karnataka High Court
Sri. S. Hemanth Kumar vs Smt. D. R. Asha on 15 February, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8705 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.HEMANTH KUMAR
S/O. S.K.SHIVRAMU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT SHIVARA VILLAGE
KERAGODU HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK-571 446 ... PETITIONER
(By Smt BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADV.,)
AND:
SMT. D.R.ASHA
W/O. S.HEMANTH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT SHIVARA VILLAGE
KERAGODU HOBLI-571 446
MANDYA TALUK
ALSO AT:
C/O. C.SHIVANNA
DANAYAKANAPURA VILLAGE
KERAGODU HOBLI-571 446
MANDYA TALUK ... RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
26.06.2018 MADE IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
2
NO.341/2017 ON THE FILE OF CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MANDYA AND (b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.10.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MANDYA IN CRL.MISC.NO.88/2016.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Smt. Bhushani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case papers.
2. An order passed under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C, directing the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent, which has been affirmed in Crl.R.P.No.341/2017 on 26.6.2018 has been assailed and on perusal of the orders passed by the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition and it is liable to be rejected at the threshold for the reasons indicated hereinbelow.
3
3. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties namely, petitioner and respondent being husband and wife. The respondent - wife has initiated proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and in the said proceedings an application under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C, was filed by respondent-wife seeking interim maintenance of `10,000/- per month.
4. The petitioner-husband contended that the respondent-wife is living in adultery and as such she is not entitled for interim maintenance. The learned Trial Judge having regard to the point that the respondent is running condiment shop, next to LIC in the main road of Maddur and he has also having Provision Store at Shivara Village and possessing 2 and ½ acres of wet land and the fact that he is the only son to his parents and earning more than `50,000/- to `60,000/- as income per month, has allowed the petition in part and 4 awarded maintenance at `4,000/- per month. Hence, on the ground of mere allegation of chastity of wife is to be suspected, maintenance cannot be denied. Learned Trial Judge has allowed the application in part as noted hereinabove. The said finding recorded by the Trial Court does not call for interference, particularly, in the background of there being no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties and with regard to the respondent-wife living in Adultery is a matter, which will have to be examined after trial as against the statement made on oath by the petitioner-husband, which has been denied by the respondent-wife also on oath, which will have to be examined by the Trial Court after trial by taking into consideration entire evidence. Hence, at this stage wife cannot be denied maintenance, which has been sought for and awarded by the Court below. No good grounds made out to issue notice. Hence, Petition is hereby rejected.
5
In view of rejection of Criminal Petition, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*