Karnataka High Court
Dr Mahantesh S/O. Mahalingappa ... vs Smt. Sumati W/O. Dr. Mahantesh Akalegol on 28 June, 2023
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6438
CRL.P No. 100406 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100406 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
DR. MAHANTESH S/O. MAHALINGAPPA AAKALEGOL,
AGED: 39 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT -587313.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUMATI W/O. DR. MAHANTESH AKALEGOL
AGED: 33 YEARS,
OCC: PHARMACIST,
R/O: GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL,
HARAPANAHALLI, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN DIST: DAVANAGERE -583131.
KATTIMANI
2. KUMARI. ANVITHA D/O. DR. MAHANTESH AKALEGOL
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR AGED: 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
MUDHOL CIRCLE, MUDHOL,
Date: 2023.07.07
14:51:36 -0700 TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT -587313.
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED
BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
RESPONDENT 2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6438
CRL.P No. 100406 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT,
KOPPAL IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 11/2022 AND
THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE
AND JMFC KOPPAL IN CRL. MISC. NO. 265/2016., FILED U/SEC
125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.Girish A Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Neelendra D Gunde for respondents.
2. Parties present before the Court. They could not see eye to eye for amicable settlement. Therefore, the matter is taken up on merits.
3. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"To quash the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the Prl. Judge Family Court, Koppal in Criminal Revision Petition No. 11/2022 and the order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the Prl. Judge and JMFC Koppal in Crl. Misc. No. 265/2016., filed U/sec 125 of Cr.P.C."
4. Admittedly, the respondents were deserted by the petitioner and therefore they had to approach the -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6438 CRL.P No. 100406 of 2023 jurisdictional Magistrate seeking an order of maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.265/2016. The learned trial Magistrate taking note of the relevant aspects of the matter, after recording the evidence of the parties, allowed monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to second respondent and Rs.2,000/- to first respondent.
5. The said order of grant of maintenance was challenged before the District Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.11/2022. The learned District Judge, after hearing the parties, by order dated 29.10.2022 dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Those orders are under challenge before this Court in this petition.
6. Sri.Girish A Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that the parties have separated themselves by an order of decree of divorce. After the divorce, the petitioner has married for the second time and he has to -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6438 CRL.P No. 100406 of 2023 maintain his present wife and therefore he has sought for reduction of quantum of maintenance.
7. The same is refuted on behalf of respondents stating that even before the divorce came to be granted, the petitioner had married for the second time in utter violation of rules and regulations.
8. It is further contended that the maintenance amount granted is in fact not sufficient. But the respondents are satisfied because the first respondent is also earning and second respondent is to be maintained by the first respondent and sought for dismissal of the petition.
9. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.
10. On such perusal, it is seen that there is no dispute that the first respondent was married to the petitioner and second respondent is born in the wedlock. Admittedly, they were deserted by the petitioner and -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6438 CRL.P No. 100406 of 2023 therefore petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed and it was allowed by granting monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the daughter and Rs.2,000/- to the wife taking note of the fact that the first respondent is also working.
11. The said order was questioned before the District Judge in Criminal R.P. No.11/2022. However, the Revisional Court also on reappreciation of the material on record did not find any merits in the grounds urged seeking reduction of maintenance.
12. This Court in the light of the arguments put forth by the parties and in the light of the grounds urged, considered the case meticulously.
13. This Court does not find any reason whatsoever for reduction of maintenance amount. In fact, the maintenance ordered by the trial Magistrate is just and reasonable taking note of the fact that second respondent -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6438 CRL.P No. 100406 of 2023 is the daughter who is being maintained by the first respondent and she has to be educated and married.
14. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter in a cumulative manner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition needs to be rejected.
15. Hence, the following:
ORDER Admission declined and the criminal petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45