Bangalore District Court
Kavitha R vs Revanna S on 1 February, 2025
KABC0A0021532022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH-75)
Dated: This the 1st day of February, 2025.
PRESENT:
Sri.PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT, B.Sc., LL.B.,(Spl.),
74th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL. APPEAL No.25091/2022
APPELLANTS/
PETITIONERS: 1 Smt.Kavitha.R.,
D/o.K.Ramesh,
aged about 39 yrs,
2 Miss.Chaitra.R.,
D/o.Revanna.S.,
aged about 17 yrs,
3 Miss.Shreenidhi.R.,
D/o.Revanna.S.,
aged about 13 yrs,
4 Chiranthan.R.,
2
CRL.A. No.25091/2022
S/o.Revanna.S.,
aged about 9 yrs,
All 2 to 4 are minors
and rep.by her natural
Guardian/petitioner No.1,
R/at.No.61,
Gowdara Kariyappa Layout,
Kanakanagar Circle,
Kalkere, Channasandra,
Horamavu Post,
Bengaluru-43.
(Rep.by Sri.Mohammed Thouheed, Advocate)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1 Revanna.S.,
S/o.Sampangappa.N.,
aged about 52 yrs,
No.257, 1st Main, 1st Cross,
Sangasandra Hosur Main Road,
Bengaluru-68.
2 Smt.Jayamma,
W/o.Late.Sampangappa,
aged about 78 yrs,
No.257, 1st Main, 1st Cross,
Sangasandra Hosur Main Road,
Bengaluru-68.
(Rep.by Sri.S.Nagesh, Advocate)
3
CRL.A. No.25091/2022
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the appellants/petitioners in Crl.Misc. No.80/2022 on the file of MMTC-1, Bengaluru, seeking modify the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned MMTC-1, Mayhohall Unit, Bengaluru.
2. The appellants were the petitioners and respondents herein were the respondents before the trial court and hereinafter they are referred to as per the ranks assigned to them before the trial court. For brevity it is mentioned that appellant No.1/petitioner No.1 is the wife and 1st respondent herein is the husband.
3. The brief facts averred in the memorandum of appeal are that the petitioner No.1 who is no other than the wife of 1st respondent had filed a petition before the MMTC under Section 12 (1) r/w 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 (2) of PWDV Act and further had filed an application under Section 23 r/w 20 of PWDV Act seeking interim order of maintenance. The 4 CRL.A. No.25091/2022 learned MMTC, Bengaluru has partly allowed the interim application filed by the petitioner and has directed the 1 st respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the petitioner from the date of petition till further orders. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned MMTC-1, the petitioners have filed this appeal on the following grounds:-
1. That the impugned interim order passed by learned MMTC is not sustainable either in law or in facts and it is against to the materials on record.
2. That the respondent No.1 income is more than Rs.5,00,000/- per month, but the trial court without taking into that aspect had directed to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the appellants.
3. That they have no source of income and the respondent No.1 is earning Rs.5,00,000/- and is also getting income from his immovable properties, rents, fair price shop and so also petrol bunk, etc. In spite of the above act the trial court erroneously ordered maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellants. Hence, the order is not 5 CRL.A. No.25091/2022 justifiable in the eye of the law and the same requires enhancement of Rs.90,000/- per month.
4. That the trial court has not taken into account the material documents furnished by the appellants and has passed the impugned order which is in accordance with the material documentary produced by the appellants.
5. That the trial court on assumptions and presumptions had passed the impugned order and directed the respondent No.1 to pay paltry sum of Rs.10,000/- which is liable to be enhanced by this court.
6. That the trial court passed the impugned order which is one sided and not maintainable on the facts and circumstances stated by the parties in the petition. The petitioners No.2 to 4 are still pursuing their studies and therefore they requires to spend further more than Rs.80,000/- per month for medical and education, rent and for other miscellaneous expenses.
Accordingly, on all these grounds the appellants have prayed for modify the said impugned order dated 05.04.2022 passed in Crl.Misc. No.80/2022. 6
CRL.A. No.25091/2022
4. After filing of this appeal, the presence of the respondents were secured. The trial court record was called and received.
5. Heard arguments of both the appellants and the respondents and perused the entire materials placed on record.
6. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the impugned interim order requires to be set aside?
2. What order?
7. My answer on the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: As per the final order, for the following:-7
CRL.A. No.25091/2022 REASONS
8. POINT No.1: There is no dispute regarding the facts that petitioner No.1 and 1 st respondent are legally wedded husband and wife and they have 4 issues and further the records show that the petitioner No.1 who is the wife has filed a petition under Section 12 (1) r/w 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 (2) of the DV Act before the MMTC-1 and also had filed an application under Section 23 r/w 20 of DV Act seeking certain interim reliefs including the Monetary relief of Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards the monthly maintenance.
9. The trial court after hearing the parties has partly allowed the application and has 'directed the respondent No.1 to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the petitioner from the date of petition till further orders'.
10. The order under challenge before this court is purely an interim order and further the interim order passed by the learned MMTC-1 would go to show that the trial court 8 CRL.A. No.25091/2022 has observed in the order, which is a brief order stating that at the time of adjudication of the application, the petitioner has not established certain facts and documents have not been furnished and in order to decide the said reliefs, the evidence is required and a trial is required. By considering the fact that the petitioner No.1 and 1 st respondent are having 4 children and the domestic relationship is not in dispute, by considering that it is necessary to grant some maintenance to the petitioner No.1 for her welfare and well- being.
11. The order would clearly reflect that no specific amount has been ordered to be paid except a direction has been passed. The said 'direction' has been challenged by the wife before this court.
12. The facts remains that the petitioner No.1 was subjected to domestic violence. The petitioner No.1 is not a working woman. In the assets and liability affidavit it is 9 CRL.A. No.25091/2022 mentioned that 1st respondent earning Rs.5,00,000/- per month from real estate business and ration shop. It is the bounden duty of respondent No.1 being husband of petitioner No.1 to provide maintenance and more over, the trial court has not directed the 1 st respondent to pay certain specific amount monthly towards the maintenance. The court is not barred from issuing directions in the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. On perusal of the material available on record, it goes to show that petitioner No.1 filed application u/S 12 of P.W.D.V. Act by seeking various reliefs. Petitioner No.1 was subjected to domestic violence. However ever since from the inception of the marriage the life of the petitioner No.1 was miserable and very sad, though respondent No.1 is affluent and avaricious he consistently harassed and tortured each and every passing of the life of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 had tolerated with infinite patience. After the advent of 10 CRL.A. No.25091/2022 the four children also the respondent No.1 continued to harass and use to scold in vile and filthy language before the four children and this continured for the period of 25 years and the petitioner No.1 family and all the famnily members of the petitioner No.1 tolerated so that one or the other day the respondent No.1 will reform one or the other day and he was frequently flexing the muscles towards the petitioner No.1 and her family members and even to her small kids he use to scold and abuse in vulgar language.
14. Perusal of the records, it clearly goes to show that the respondent No.1 even before the marriage and after the marriage also he is a womeniser and has illicit relationship with sevearl womens and his life is soaked in the fornication and he will behind the prostitution ladies and the respondent No.1 is spending the money extravagantly for his illegal and unlawful demands as he is very rich. The petitioner No.1 has several health issues with ppor health and even despite 11 CRL.A. No.25091/2022 of that also he has not taken care of his wife and though the petitioner No.1 is the mother of 4 children he never took care of her during her pregnancy period and he always stood like stone heart. When the petitioner No.1 was conceived on several occasions she had to abort because of the reason that the child is baby girl, like wise the life of the petiitoner No.1 has become a miserable and life has withered to extreme and pall of gloom in the life without happiness and the life is hallow with out gragrance. Because of the mental torture and harassment and the petitioner No.1 is under constant medical supervision who is suffering from Thyroid and Low Blook pressure, and the health is always fragile. After the marriage the mother in law and father in law have made all possible ways to harass, coerce to threaten.
15. Perusal of the records, it clearly goes to show that the petitioner No.1 was suffered at the hands of respondent No.1 and 2, they had contact of rowdy elements and they 12 CRL.A. No.25091/2022 can stoop to any level. At the instigation of respondent No.1, the mother in law who spoiled the conducive and congenial atmosphere. Always there was slanging argument between petitioner No.1 and mother in law and respondent and with the entire family of respondent. Basically the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are very arrogant and hypocratic, and always want to be an upper hand, and his attitude is always of double standard and he had became like parasite upon petitioner No.1 by soft peddling and enticing the petitioner No.1.
16. Perusal of the records, it clearly goes to show that the respondent No.1 was not looking after the appellants and he was not providing them basic needs. The respondent No.1 is drawing the income of Rs.5,00,000/- per month and he is having immovable properties such as agricultural land and getting income from them in all his income is more than Rs.5,00,000/- per month. However there are 30 houses and 13 CRL.A. No.25091/2022 3 shops are situated in half acre and is rented to tenants totalling to the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- per month, the place where the respondent No.1 is residing at No.257, Singasandra Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru-68 and apart of that the respondent No.1 has fair price shop and also the licnce standing in his name which is situated at his residence place shop, and the petrol bund stands in S.No.110/2, in which the respondent No.1 is drawing huge profit margin. The respondent No.1 neglected to maintain the appellants. In spite of earning he was not looking after the family. The records reveals that the petitioner No.1 is not earning sufficiently to support her life. It is bounden duty of the respondent No.1 to maintain his wife. Respondent No.1 being husband is duty bound to maintenance his wife. U/S 23 of D.V.Act itself provides discretionary power to Magistrate to grant exparte interim relief considering the over all facts and circumstances and exigency. The discretionary 14 CRL.A. No.25091/2022 power has to be exercised with sound judicious manner and not casually.
17. Perusal of the papers and considering the nature of the case and the position of the petitioners and respondents, the order passed by the trial court is a proper and just and more over, the interim relief granted by the trial court is interim relief and considering the nature of the case and qualification of the both parties and status of both the parties in the society it is just and proper confirm the trial court order.
18. The trial court granted interim maintenance to pay Rs.10,000/- and more over u/S 23 of the DV Act itself provides that discretion power given to Magistrate to grant exparte interim relief and trial court considering over all facts and circumstances of the case granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as interim maintenance. Herein this case the appellants want to modify the said 15 CRL.A. No.25091/2022 order. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, trial court is properly granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. It is leading life to the petitioner. Thereby I hold neither there are any merits in the case nor the appellants have made out any grounds for setting aside the order. The jurisdiction of the court is not limited when a petition is filed under DV Act before the Magistrate. The Magistrate is having ample power to adjudicate the application and grant necessary reliefs as deems fit in fact and circumstances of the case. The impugned order is one such order, interference of this court in the order passed by the learned Magistrate will not arise. Accordingly, I answer point for consideration No.1 in Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed.16
CRL.A. No.25091/2022 Send the copy of this order along with TCR to the trial court.
No order as to costs.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of February, 2025].
[PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT] LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
17 CRL.A. No.25091/2022