Karnataka High Court
Sri Anand Basappa Halki vs Smt Surekha W/O Anand Halki on 31 March, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHQK B; ' *
IN THE IIIOII COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 318'? DAY OF MARCH,
BEFORE
CRIMINAL PETITION ;No.5;;'_ICI~'?/20.0'?.:
CRIMINAL REVISION RETITION No, 83.8/SO08
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI O';'E,..S.I--I'ASTRY, ADV.)
AGE 48 YEARS, "
V
R /O. "GAS1>QBSE.RVA7'O.RY
INDIA IVMETAIIOOICAL '
'DEPAR'1'ME_NT, "
ALTHINIIc)~I>AN;II_M-,,_
G()A~ 4032011] , '
- -_ ...RETITIONER
mOMMOM
' SvMT'.j"Si;IVREKHA
XII"/'QANAND HALKI,
" AGED 35 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O.C/O.S.S.1\/EANE,
HUDCO COLONY,
I-I.NO. 16, CHIKODI,
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
Ta)
2. KUMARI ANNARURNA
D /O.ANAND HALKI,
MINOR,
OCC. STUDENT,
R/O.C/O.S.S. MANE,
HUDCO COLONY,
H.NO. 16, CHIKODI,
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
-: , (C._O.M'IvION}
{BY SR1 SACHINS. MATGDUII/IYFO'RA.R1)
.'}RE.:SPOPJDENTS' I I
THE CRLP. 51 17/200'?-vA.L:.I'S, FILED. UNDEAR 4"SECTION"
482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FORTHE PETITIONER
PRAYINO TO SET ASIDE THE'"OR_jDER-.DATED;~ 19/ 09/2007
IN CRL.R.P. NO. 263/2067 ON f_FHE=--FILE_OF' THE III ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, I3ELGAUM'ANDSC'TfH.EOTHER DATED.
12/03/2007 1N,_CRL.I\/§IS--C_.'=NO.,A 23,*200'4;ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL.CIV1L--.,JUD(}§E (JR'_T,DN47)'~.&;..IJ.M'L:F.C., CHIKKODI BE
DISMISSEDAND3TI~IIS 'CRIMINAL. PETITION BE ALLOWED.
THE C'RL.R.R.V 8S_38;52OQ8--IS FILED U/S. 399 R/w. 401
CR.P.C,. BY VTHE-»..AD.'~fOCATE§ FOR THE PETITIONER TO
CALL FOR RECVORDS'-~AN<D" TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED. '19,o9.2o_O7,I":~.I__'.¢::RL_R.I>. NO. 181/2007 ON THE
FILE OF THE) H;..ADI;=L.'S.J., BELGAUM AND THE ORDER
DT.4.%.«:12/O3/20o:fI.IN C.RL.MISC. NO. 23/2004 ON THE FILE
QIa*«~TH--.E RRL. C.J."(';IR.DN.) AT CHIKKODI CRL.IvIISC. NO.
» 23/V2a_Q4.E.E "D1_SMISS;.?3D.
. ' THE; Ci?=RIMINAl. PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
AD.MIS_SION= AND THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS
COIVIING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING;
Lo:
ORDER
As both C1'1.P. 5117/2007' and Cr1.R.P. 838/200___8 arise from the common order dated. 19/09/2007 passe'dt:'b§~t.the Court of III Addi. Sessions Judge, 163/2007 and Cri.R.P. 181 /2OO7?HtVhey are"c";eiI§bed;tv"hee.fd'". together and are being disposed ofVf_by::'t'his 1;:
2. The facts of the casein brief~--a1'?e-that;fV.t. . A V' ' The respondents No. 2V" a_r'e*--the':';:wife and daughter of the petitiont:r¢_resjj'ecti1v'eiyt.'Vi"Invoking Section 125 of cr.p..-ct, Hee1.tti1e.eivc'riZMte.e.v"i\Io. 23 /2004 in the Court of the*Pr1: c;t;i'i"Jit=e:-ige. 86 J.M.F.C., Chikodi, praying for awardingi inti.'irz'ten.:at1ce amount of Rs.-4,000/-- to each of ,»'ZE:]?€i'II"fI'OII1V.'{'iE.E-3Vtiatt} of the petition. The Magistrate has .Aawarded,ARsL2,.()O{)/~ towards the maintenance of the 15' responvdeint.__aint:§"Rs.1,000/-- towards the maintenance of the 2né"'teepend'ente tree-1 the date of the order (:2/03/2007).
"Aggrit:veci by the said order, the petitioner fiied 163/2t';(")"/" contending that he has no means to pay Egg.
the awarded maintenance amount. The respondents filed Cr1.R.P. No. 181/2007 praying for the enhancement of the amount and for awarding the amount from the dateg'..of,gthe petition and not from the date of the order. Judge dismissed the Cr1.R.P. No. 163 /2007 ana.'::a1tjs3séd'it1i's Cr1.R.P. No. 181/2007 in part. 7*hE imodi}ica;tioni«.1_na'de' by the Sessions Judge is as fog11ows:V4'.__The entitled to the maintenance o'E.:R--s.2,0.00_[¥ 'per but' from the date of petition. ;F'i.1rth'er""s-the maintenance of amounts in respect of therespond_entfNo;.1 are enhanced from Rs.2,00Q/~~:to'*-Rs.i2i,5(§O:[i:-- date of the order. In respect of t-he Sessions Court awarded Rs.1,50AG,{--"fron1._thie"dateii"of"the petition till the date of the award. tl.*1-eii'"'i'ria1 Court (12/ 03/ 2007). The 'i V' amotinits were enhanced from Rs.1,000/-- to Rs.2,000/-- from the idatevorder (12 /03 /2007).
"4.i7~it is this order, which is being assailed by the p.ebtiti;oner's learned advocatg, Smt. Kulkarni. She submits that the petitioner has always been ready to take back the figivt.
' -petitionS;.
respondents. He has never neglected to maintain them. The 15* respondent deserted the matrimonial home without any reason. She also complains of the delay on the partojofogthe respondents in filing the petition for I'I'1ai1'1l'.€}.'1ai1f'3_f;"'-.'_"i'uhe.' submits that no reasons are advanced by them Conrt i for awarding higher amounts and also "for7 petitioner liable to pay the amounts ilretrospge't;tlV'el'y, submits that the Exs.R--1 to clear1y_inadicatgyefllof the desertion of the rnatriinonial respondent No.1 without there being any reason"; 'i Sri Miagladuxnilthe learned counsel for the respondents ywouljd "the impugned order passed by the Sessions" and pray for the dismissal of these two Ex;R3l.__is a letter dated O4/O6/ 1996 written by the to the petitioner. It deals with the j admingisltratiion of the triple polio injection, bringing of the l_'e~.,suit~gcase#, etc. It has absolutely no relevance for the $3.54;
8. What has weighed with the Sessions Court is that the petitioner's father is a teacher; he gets pension and he owns a residential building in Belgaum. In Belgam'.he..a1so has the agricultural properties. While the petitio~n.e_r.ifriajy:io.r may not be getting any income from properties, the pension that the p.etitio'r1evri"s father'-.geVtis'ianid the properties which he owns are such, that tried:peititiioneidsr.L father may not be dependant oirtiie petitio_n'eAr.ii.= V
9. The contention that the pe-titiogner is'alWa,.ys ready to take back the respondent .iori_ly1'appears to be a stratagem ifori'vevadingy:or_' avoiding the liability to pay the maintenance ainoLints§'*~._l3ec'ause even now the respondent No. 1_.i_s rea'dy_:Vto..be iretiinited with the petitioner. On my speci'fic-.a1ly'vi~Ayaskingifhe petitioner's advocate, she submits that'thgdpetitiioiner is disinclined to take her back into the ' 1n'a__trirnonial_ home after 16 years.
The delay in filing the petition for maintenance is fatal to initiate the proceedings for maintenance. It is quite possible that the common Well--wishers and elders may have tried to bring the two warring spouses togethveri."-««.'iOnly on their efforts not leading the respondents may have filed the petition for maintenance; " '
11. My perusal of the»'Session:~_ Court'iior§1.ergV reveals._> that it has taken into accountiiiiithevi living of the parties, the requiremeiit:s':««of and capability of the petitioner. Av"l'he S<§SSil§r1S noticed that the grand total &the".peti'tiori'erv--is=il?s.14,826/--. That the petitioner half of his salary towards no ground for demanding that should be lowered. Because ultimately iithei' tamoitantisi contributed towards General Fund are""byi way of saving and the petitioner is entitled"'gye'tuit"back whenever he needs. This Court takes judieial ilof the phenomenal jump in the salary of the CVeInploy.eies_ of Central Government and its undertakings on i..faec'ou.r1t of the last pay revision. Viewed from any angle, 1 do not see any scope for reducing the amounts reasonably fiiéfiig, enhanced by the Sessions Court towards the maintenance of the respondents and for making the petitioner 1iabEe'"to pay certain amounts from the date of institution of It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent"-is Course in Bangalore. The cost of:'hiigh'er'education_, Engineering course, is whoppingisp -s,ndit.iig~.a{n;,»_' scope for my interference, I these peAtitioirrs4;i with' one clarification. As itis noet-'i11...idisf:w_1.te thattheijpetitioner has once paid a sum oi" is 'entitled to get the deduction for the said aiiioun.t rnaintenance arrears. Sd/--
JUDGE