Karnataka High Court
Anil Appanna Randewadi, vs Smt.Vaishali Anil Randewadi, on 9 February, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (2) AKR 259
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100057/2016
BETWEEN
ANIL APPANNA RANDEWADI,
AGE : 43 YEARS, OCC : PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. AZAD ROAD, ALANAWAR,
TAL & DIST :DHARWAD
....... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VITHAL S.TELI, ADV.)
AND
SMT.VAISHALI ANIL RANDEWADI
AGE : 35 YEARS, OCC : PIGMY AGENT,
R/O.AZAD ROAD, ALANAWAR,
TAL & DIST-DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADV.)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397(1) READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 05.11.2015 IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.41/2015 BY THE V ADDL. DUISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI WHEREIN CONFIRMED THE
JUDGEMENT DATED 11/03/2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC - KHANAPUR IN CRL.MISC.130/2010.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the judgement of the trial Court and first Appellate Court.
2. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to their relationship. For the purpose of convenience and easy understanding, I would like to refer the parties as per their ranks before the trial court.
3. The petitioner Smt.Vaishali wife of the first respondent Anil Appanna Randewadi had filed a matrimonial case in Crl.Misc.No.130/2010 before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Khanapur under Section 12(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming various reliefs against the respondents. The Respondents therein appeared and contested the proceedings by filing their objections.
4. In order to prove her case, petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to 7. Respondent No. 1 himself examined as RW1 3 and also examined one witness as RW2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R34.
5. The trial court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the petition. Accordingly, the trial court has ordered to restrain respondent No. 1 from committing any kind of Domestic Violence against the complainant/petitioner and also directed him to provide alternate accommodation to the complainant with all basic necessities apart from the maintenance awarded in a sum of Rs.4000/- p.m. to the complainant/Respondent and a sum of Rs.2000/-p.m. to her daughter for their maintenance as monetary relief's.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgement and award, the petitioner has approached the Vth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Appeal No.41/2015. The first Appellate Court after re-appreciating the materials on record has come to the conclusion that there is no reason to interfere with the judgement and order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, it has dismissed 4 the appeal confirming the judgement and order passed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision petition is filed.
7. The learned counsel Sri.V.S.Teli, strenuously argued before this court, that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the relationship or with regard to other reliefs granted by the trial Court. He further contended that the trial Court and the first Appellate Court having not properly considered the plea taken up by the respondent therein with regard to the earning capacity of the petitioner (wife), though sufficient materials were produced before the court that she was earning by working as Pigmi Agent. Therefore, her earning capacity should have been taken into consideration by both the courts as such contends that this court, while exercising power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. can set right the said illegality committed by both the courts.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contends before this court that though certain materials are placed before the trial court by the respondent, but it 5 is not proved to the satisfaction of the trial court with regard to what exactly the amount she was earning. Further, he contends before the court that when the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have rendered the judgement after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, this court normally should not interfere unless there is any injustice caused to the parties. Hence, pleaded for dismissal of the revision petition.
9. On careful perusal of the judgement of the trial Court at paragraph No.22, the trial Court has observed that the respondent was paying Rs.3,000/- per month to her and it was not sufficient to maintain herself and small school going daughter. Therefore, she claimed maintenance and monetary relief before the court. The trial Court has also observed, with reference to the plea taken up by the respondent and with reference to the documents produced. It is observed by the trial Court that the respondent no. 2, who is working as CEO of Alnawar Society by name Ashok Byahatti was examined as RW2 and he has deposed that he know the complainant / 6 respondent-wife, who was working as pigmy agent from 15.05.2013 to July 2014 and she was entitled for commission of 10% on pigmy collected amount.
10. In this regard, Exs.P-33 and P-34 documents are got marked and specifically stated that in the year 2014 December, she has tendered her resignation to her job and the same was accepted. It is suggested to the witness that she was earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- as commission, but the same has been denied. Even this witness has never stated as to what exactly the commission she was getting by way of pigmy collection and not produced any other materials to show that what exactly the earning capacity of the said lady. Therefore, both the courts appears to have been kept quiet so far as this particular aspect is concerned.
11. It is the duty of the respondent to place sufficient materials to show that what exactly the earnings of the said lady and how much amount she was reaping from pigmy collection and why she left that job. 7
12. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case as there are no materials available on the record, the court has to ascertain the minimum requirement of a person to live in the society to meet the ends of the day.
13. The trial court has awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to her daughter. In all a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the petitioner and her daughter. It is an admitted fact and accepted by way of evidence that she has a school going child. She require sufficient nourishment. To meet the school fees, uniform and day today expenses, the wife requires more than Rs.3,000/- p.m., along with the expenses of her own. However, in the revision petition, this court cannot enhance the maintenance amount. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the amount ordered by the trial Court is meager and at any cost it is not excessive. Even otherwise, while exercising powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. this court has look into the legality and priority of the order 8 impugned. Normally revision Court should not reverse the concurrent finds on facts. I find no illegality committed by the trial Court. In view of the above, the following order is passed.
ORDER The revision petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending IA No.2/2016 does not survive for consideration and hence, the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MNS/PL