Shri Prakash @ Basavraj Angadi, S/O ... vs Smt Pratibha @ Rekha D/O Shantappa on 18 June, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Prakash @ Basavraj Angadi, S/O ... vs Smt Pratibha @ Rekha D/O Shantappa on 18 June, 2010

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT D}-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18'?" DAY OF JUNE, 2{_)éoV    

BEFORE   -

THE HONBLE3 MR.JUsTIcE;":..JA€§/A1:    

CRIMINAL PI3:TITIo'N_ 'N..Q. 7498/20:3}  

BETWEEN:

PRAKASH @ BAsAvARAJ--_AN(;AI3--Ijj~ I '-
S/OBASAVANNEPPA ANGADI,  " '
AGE.ABOU'.E'.4O YEARS;  ; I 
occ. HIG.H=S_CHOOL TEAC'HE3R_;-- ._ 
R/O4HA_RLAE*UR,~." ' 4-  
TQ. KL'a"NDA-GOLA,  
DIsT.DI--iA'I?V%AD, . .
N /R;'"A--'I'_ B;ELA*fm N'AI<I~,
TQ. RON ;'LIv1SjI';'GA*I3%A'(}_. . '
 " I    " ...PE'I'lTIONER

(BY SuRi.,_ I3'E?.Ai~;I'§ISA£:I"@.,\}3ASAVARAJ ANGADI- PARTY-
IN»-F?ERSO»N)' ~ I' -

    REKHA

' I-1:) /OLSIHAEEITAPPA LASIVIESHWARA

' .__4w/c:..I?_I:{AKASII ANGADI,

'AGI3. ABOUT 35 YEARS,

R '/QQHARLAPUR,

" ~ : ._TQ.KUNDGOLA,

DIST. DHARWAD,

 N/A. CHIKKABASUR,

TQ. BYADAGI.
 RESPONDEN'I'

,,
= I.

.. I'?

1/



{J

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION Is FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C.
SEEKRM} D3 QUASH THE INTERDI ORDER DATED
25112009 PASSED BY THE DEXHUCT AND SESSHDNS
JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRL.R.P. NO. 162/2009 THE cowoii'
WWHCH HAS BEEN MARKED AND PRODUCED: HT
ANNEXURE+t '»"J=*

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADI\/II'ss;IoiI$I'».?IfIII's-

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLL_QW1_NG:  "  ~  V

ORDERV

This petition is under Seotion 
against the interim OI'€v1E;',!"..Vp¢':lS'S'€HC1"'i§')",'VVU3_f..f leaTned""$essi0ns
Judge in Cr1.R.P. No. I62?/2009I.d}:ited__'2e;f»ILH2009 directing

the petitioner tolpay Rsg--2_,5VOt'I«fv§ per month as

interim ?_mainten'aneV_e"«t,o 'the-_1__"e§'pjondent, pending disposal of

the reVisiC5nV_petitio;n.V   I
2. Heafd. the petitioneii" in person.

 __Ti1e faoitsvv-...I?e«ievant for consideration are-- the

 of the petitioner initiated proceedings

against  under 125 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of

*Vmaintena"naceV on the plea. that petitioner had totally neglected

V' "V.'a,nd'id_eprived her even basic necessities. In the petition





Lu

detail enquiry was held and the learned Magistrate by the

impugned order dated 13/10/2009 allowed the petition

fix

fixing monthly maintenance as Rs.f3,000/-- to be 

petitioner herein from the date of petition.  it

the petitioner is in Crl.R.P. No. i.62~,'C»?QO9.'_l .lfi}ef,of"»_ ll

learned District 85 Sessions Judge}  

revision he filed application und:er....g'Secltion" 382§3;i'(i;') 
r/w. Section 397 of Cr.Pt__C. seeki_ng'~vstayggof the passed
by the T rial Court.   Judge while
admitting the revision has  order dated
13/10/2009   /g.4eel5".lét:'bject to petitioner

paying  9¢3r,mo;ii't-h_ from the date of petition filed
 it A  
by the petitioner to'=--._continue to pay the same till

disposa'1--.of theire\i:is'ioin. 'aggrieved by it, he is in this petition

. ll un.der-- éeetion 482  Now as could be seen from the

lnatlurel*o.f:V'«dispu~te_}~ between the parties' petitioner has also

filed .petitiVon:is;eel<ing divorce against the respondent, which

still pending. Simultaneously the respondent filed petition "for vmaintenance and has succeeded in obtaining order of ..__"inai}ntenance.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is, he is not in a position to pay Rs.2,500/-- per month, because of the me'--:=2_gre salary he is drawing. According to him the direction:do-fl:thle., learned Sessions Judge in revision is difficult to K with. In this regard he submits that apart:

him to pay Rs.2,500/-- per month, directed to pay arrears from the .date of petition

5. Along with the p'etiltiori.ghel ha's«l;prod.uced the salary certificate rnarkeda.as An1'i'exure§i\E,y«'perusali it shows his gross salary l:"€'si.8,.927 andf,tal<:eWll home salary is Rs.8,112/--._ _ that directing him to pay Rs.2,500/l--' .pe:'_mon_th"~is to comply. But at the same time thevdirectiongp in thelimpugned order directing to pay the .ln'iaintenaneeli'A.from date of petition needs to" be etr;nsider"eci:«._y "

6." could be seen the petition was filed by the l're_spo_nlt:lent before the Trial Court on 08/06/2006, thus the

----_l:"peti§tioner will have to pay arrears for past four years. ln rt ii /'7lVi:"~/ r i View of financial difficulties expiained by him, I am satisfied that the order impugned needs to be modified and 11OLV~'.I{}_ be quashed. Hence while confirming the order of Sessions Judge directing him to pay if as maintenance to the respondent,~~the direction"in.the7.. impugned order to pay arrears fro1ri:.Athe_'_' fdateff'ofA"p.ejtitio}:i1'~K11./.. modified. The petitioner is directepd to"-pay of Rs.10,000/-- towards the past the current maintenance fronitiiep in Cr]. Misc. No. 58/2006 i.e., October apart from Rs.10,000/-- the petitioner shaii pagr /@009 till disposal of the revision.

.. Petition stand__s__d.isposed of. . hn'm"'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court