Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shashikala. G vs Sri. N. Raghunath on 25 September, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1255/2018
Between:
1. Smt. Shashikala G
W/o. N. Raghunath
D/o. Late Giriyappa
Aged about 50 years
2. Kumari Yukthi
D/o. N. Raghunath
Aged about 17 years
3. Kumari Dhruthi
D/o. N. Raghunath
Aged about 12 years
Since respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
Minors Rep by their Natural Guardian
Smt. Shashikala G
All the petitioners are R/a
No.74, 3rd Cross, 1st Main
Nrupathunga Extension, J.C. Road
R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru - 32. ...Petitioners
(By Sri Prasanna Kumar S, Advocate for
Sri M.S. Shyam Sundar, Advocate)
And:
Sri N. Raghunath
S/o. Nagendrappa
Aged about 51 years
1st Cross, Behind HAL P.S.
-2-
Near HAL Convention Centre
Bengaluru - 37. ... Respondent
(By Smt. Rajeshwari B.R., Advocate )
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated
02.06.2017 passed in Crl. Misc. No.33/2016 pending on the
file of the IV M.M.T.C., vide document No.4 and etc.,
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner - wife and children being aggrieved by the judgment passed by LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in Crl.A No.895/2017 dated 16.10.2018 whereunder, the order passed by the IV Additional MMTC, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.33/2016 dated 02.06.2017 was came to be dismissed and the order of the trial Court awarding interim maintenance to appellant No.1 to the extent of Rs.2,000/- is set-aside the award of interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each to appellant Nos.2 and 3 is confirmed. It is further ordered that order passed on 11.09.2017 awarding enhanced -3- interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- each to the appellants is also set-aside.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent.
3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that petitioner No.1 is wife of the respondent, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minor children born to petitioner No.1 and respondent. The petition was came to be filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent/husband and in the said petition an application was came to be filed praying to grant interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- from the respondent. After issuance of notice, respondent appeared and filed objections and after hearing both the sides, the Court below granted an interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- i.e., Rs.2,000/- each to petitioner Nos.1 to 3. The same was challenged -4- by the petitioner/wife and children in Crl.A. No.895/2017 and the respondent/husband has also challenged the same order in Crl.A. No.887/2017. The first appellate Court though heard the applications together, for the reasons best known to it has passed two different orders on the same day. The appeal filed by the appellants was partly allowed with the above said order of granting Rs.2,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 remained unaltered and the interim maintenance granted to petitioner No.1 is set-aside. Challenging the same, petitioner/wife and children are before this Court.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent is working as an Engineer in HAL, drawing a salary of Rs.1,50,000/-. Though the respondent is drawing a substantial amount, the Courts below have awarded the interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and -5- 3 is on the lower side. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent ill-treated and harassed the petitioner No.1 for demanding more dowry and in this regard a case has been also registered in C.C.No.866/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and still the case is pending. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2 is studying in 1st PUC and petitioner No.3 is studying in VII standard. The amount of interim maintenance is awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court is not adequate to meet the day to day needs including residence, payment of school fees and other incidental charges.
5. It is further submitted that though the petitioner No.1 being employee, the salary she is getting is only Rs.58,000/- and after deduction, she is getting only Rs.48,000/-. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult for her to pay school fees and other incidental -6- charges. It is further submitted that respondent being an employee in HAL, Bengaluru and is highly qualified Engineer, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being the children of respondent have to maintain standard in which the respondent is staying. In order to maintain the standard, the amount which has been awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by first appellate Court is not adequate. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to set-aside the impugned order of the trial Court by enhancing the interim maintenance.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/husband vehemently argued and submitted that though the respondent is working as an engineer in HAL and drawing a salary of Rs.1,20,000/- but he is having many more deduction. It is her further submission that two sites have been purchased in the name of petitioner No.1/wife and he has incurred huge loan for the purpose of purchasing -7- the said site and the major portion of his income is going to be used for the purpose of repayment of loan, which he has availed. She further submitted that net salary which is taken by the respondent is only Rs.70,000/-. It is her further submission that a house has been constructed in Hiriyur by raising a loan and that also going to be deducted in salary. It is her further submission that since from beginning the respondent/husband used to pay school fees of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and when he went for cardiac operation, during that particular period he could not make payment of school fees. It is her further submission that petitioner No.1 is working as hostel Superintendent and drawing a salary of Rs.58,000/-. It is her further submission that she herself left the house and she is residing separately and only with an intention to harass the respondent she has also filed criminal case and the said case is also pending. It is her further submission that the Courts below after -8- considering the fact that petitioner No.1 is working and drawing a salary, interim maintenance is granted by the Court below and has been set-aside and interim maintenance granted in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 has been confirmed. The Courts below have passed a straight forward judgment and there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order. On these grounds, she prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records including the judgment of the trial Courts in both the appeals.
8. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 and respondent are husband and wife and after their marriage they have begotten two children i.e., petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No.2 is studying in PUC and petitioner No.3 is going to school and studying in VII standard. It is also not in -9- dispute that respondent is working in HAL as an Engineer and drawing a salary of Rs.1,20,000/- so also the petitioner is also working as a hostel Superintendent and drawing a salary of Rs.58,000/-. Keeping in view of the above said facts and circumstances and after perusal of records it clearly goes to show that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are grown up and are studying in PUC and VII standard respectively. Then under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that interim maintenance, which has been granted to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 appears to be on the lower side. This Court, conscious of the fact that admittedly petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are staying along with petitioner No.1 and she is also working woman and drawing salary of Rs.58,000/-. But however, when admittedly petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are children of respondent, then under such circumstances a duty cast upon him to maintain his children equally along with petitioner No.1 according to his standard of living and he should not
- 10 -
drive them to destitution. It is further observed that now a days school fees, books and other expenses are highly expensive including residence and when the respondent is drawing a gross salary of Rs.1,20,000/- then under such circumstances amount which has been granted by the Court below as well as first appellate Court appears to be on lower side.
9. Though during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the respondent is getting net salary of Rs.70,000/- after deducting loan amount and other things but when admittedly petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are children of respondent, then upliftment of children according to his standard is a duty cast upon the father and he is not paying the said amount as a charity. Though the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that petitioner No.1 herself left the respondent by deserting, but it is the matter to be
- 11 -
considered and appreciated only at the time of final hearing of the case. The said contention is not applicable to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. At this juncture, without expressing anything on merits of the case as it is going to prejudice the parties before the Courts below, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners have made out a case to enhance the interim maintenance which has been granted by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court.
10. In the light of the discussions held by me and taking into consideration the rival contentions of both the parties, the petition is allowed and the interim maintenance granted to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 has been enhanced to Rs.5,000/- each payable from the date of order of interim maintenance granted by the trial Court insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned order of rejecting interim maintenance is confirmed.
- 12 -
In view of disposal of main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE nms