Bangalore District Court
Shri. Kishore Kumar vs Smt. Preethi on 12 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SHRI.SUBHASH SANKAD,
B.A., LL.M.
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2019
Crl.A.No.2216/2018
APPELLANT:- SHRI. KISHORE KUMAR
SIDHAPUR NAGARAJ,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.H-1404,
Nagarjuna Meadows Phase-2,
Doddaballapura Main Road,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
(Party in person)
V/s.
RESPONDENT : SMT. PREETHI,
R/at No.1030, 1st Main Road,
Opp. Wheel and Axel Plan,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
(By Sri. AGB, Advocate)
* * * *
2 Crl.A.No.2216/2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal filed by the appellant under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking for a direction to direct the respondent to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,81,600/- paid under protest towards the order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bangalore, revised on 03.10.2018.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The respondent Smt. Preethi who is wife of appellant herein has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, for an appropriate relief. The trial court has directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,600/- towards educational expenses of his two minor children. The respondent has filed an application seeking for an alternative relief of payment of educational expenses of her children and she has also submitted the receipts showing that she has paid the fees to the schools and college of her children. Since the appellant has not complied by the order passed by the trial court, the trial court has issued FLW, thereafter the appellant herein deposited Rs.1,81,600/- and consequently FLW dated 3 Crl.A.No.2216/2018 23.10.2018 was recalled. Now the present appeal is filed on the ground that he is not liable to the 2 disputed bills', namely one from Miranda Education Society for Rs.25,000/- and other from Ace Creative Learning Pvt. Ltd., for Rs.1,34,400/- that are not from the Chetana PU college where the minor child is admitted.
On adjusting the caution deposit of Rs.25,000/- from Delhi Public School with the bill amount of Rs.15,0000/- of Chetana PU college, there shall be a credit balance of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent which is due to be adjusted in the memo copy submitted. Therefore, the liability of making additional payment did not arise at all. It is pertinent to note that on totaling all the 3 bills including the 2 disputed bills, the total sums petitioner to (Rs.15,000 + 25,000 + 1,34,400) = Rs.1,74,400/- and glaringly not Rs.1,81,600/- as obtained by respondent in the revised order on 03.10.2018. Respondent is liable to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,81,600/- paid to her under protest as the bill of Chetana PU college is adjusted with refund of caution deposit on proper reconciliation.
3. After service of the notice, the respondent has appeared and filed objections denying the grounds urged in the 4 Crl.A.No.2216/2018 appeal memo. In his objection he has stated that appellant has not paid money towards expenses of children the court has issued FLW consequently he has deposited the amount ordered by the court.
4. I have heard both the sides. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are:-
1. Whether the appellant made out a ground to interfere with the order passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bangalore?
2. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, deserves to be allowed?
3. What order
5. My findings on the above points are :-
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3:- As per the final order for the following :
REASONS
6. Points No.1:- It is the case of the appellant that he has paid Rs.1,81,600/- under protest as per the order dated 06.09.2018. According to the appellant, he is not liable to the 2 disputed bills', namely one from Miranda Education Society for 5 Crl.A.No.2216/2018 Rs.25,000/- and other from Ace Creative Learning Pvt. Ltd., for Rs.1,34,400/- that are not from the Chetana PU college where the minor child is admitted. On adjusting the caution deposit of Rs.25,000/- from Delhi Public School with the bill amount of Rs.15,0000/- of Chetana PU college, there shall be a credit balance of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent which is due to be adjusted in the memo copy submitted. Therefore, the liability of making additional payment did not arise at all. It is pertinent to note that on totaling all the 3 bills including the 2 disputed bills, the total sums petitioner to (Rs.15,000 + 25,000 + 1,34,400) = Rs.1,74,400/- and glaringly not Rs.1,81,600/- as obtained by respondent in the revised order on 03.10.2018. Respondent is liable to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,81,600/- paid to her under protest as the bill of Chetana PU college is adjusted with refund of caution deposit on proper reconciliation. However, it is relevant to mention here that the certified copies of the receipts for having paid college fees are made available to this court which are produced before the trial court. On the basis of these documents the trial court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,600/-, consequently the appellant has deposited. The reason asking the refund of said amount that the respondent has 6 Crl.A.No.2216/2018 joined his son to the schools without his consent and more so these receipts are not genuine, they are fabricated one, and the educational institution from which the receipts has been obtained is not a recognized institution. According to him since his son has been joined in the school without his consent and that institution is not a recognized institution that the receipts not appeared to be genuine one hence he sought for refund of the said amount. However, this contention of the appellant cannot be accepted because as it is contended by the appellant himself that the respondent has joined in a reputed college wherein it is common that tuition fee and other expenses bound to be high. The trial court after considering the records placed before the court has passed the order directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,81,600/-. Hence, I do not find any error or mistake in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court, consequently the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 and 2 in the 'Negative'.
7. Point No.4:- In view of the findings given on points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
7 Crl.A.No.2216/2018
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is hereby dismissed.
The impugned order passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bangalore, dated 06.09.2018 is hereby confirmed.
Send a copy of this judgment to the lower Court along with LCR forthwith. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 12th day of June, 2019) (SUBHASH SANKAD) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.