Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun vs Manjula on 3 March, 2021
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRL.P. NO.100692/2015
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUN
S/O GUNDAPPA HADAGIL,
AGE: 37 Y0EARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.NO.10/625, KUMBAR GALLI,
BRAHMAPURA, KALBURGI. NOW AT
NO.1/1495/3B, GODU TAYI COLONY,
KALABURGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.: S S YADRAMI, ADV.)
AND
1. SMT. MANJULA
W/O MALLIKARJUN HADAGIL,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/AT C/O K.SHIVASHANKAR
HOME NO.1039/107,
B.C.R. BUILDING,
NEW AMRUTESHWAR TEMPLE,
SIRUGUPPA, DT: BALLARI.
2. KRITIKA D/O MALLIKARJUN HADAGIL
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.1
3. SHIVAPRASADA S/O MALLIKARJUN, HADAGIL
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS,
A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER,
2
MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.1
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J BASAVARAJ, ADV. FOR R1
SRI. M.L.VANTI, ADV. FOR
SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANTH, ADV. FOR R1
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP/BY R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY
THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SIRAGUPPA IN
CRL.MISC.NO.131/2015 DATED 09.02.2015 AWARDING
INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF RS.45,000/- PER MONTH TO THE
RESPONDENTS AT ANNEXURE-S AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER
ISSUING WARRANT OF ARREST TO THE PETITIONER DATED
09.03.2015 AT ANNEXURE-T AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, IN
CRL.RP.NO.17/2015 DATED 09.03.2015 AT ANNEXURE-W.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the husband challenging the order of exparte interim maintenance awarded by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiruguppa vide order dated 09.02.2015 and also the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary in Criminal Revision Petition No.17/2015 dated 09.03.2015, wherein the said revision petition filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed.
3
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The respondents herein have filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction for a monthly maintenance of Rs.45,000/-. Respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are their minor children. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 09.02.2015 after considering the facts of the case directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.15,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 to 3 towards their monthly maintenance till further order on I.A. No.1. Challenging the same, petitioner herein filed a criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the said revision petition observed that the learned Magistrate can grant exparte interim maintenance on the material placed before him and same can be challenged by 4 way of filing objections. Further, observed that after disposal of the interim application, the revision petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for passing the exparte order of interim maintenance observing that the petitioner is having several moveable and immoveable properties, are without any basis.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in spite of passing of the order by the learned Magistrate awarding interim maintenance to the respondents herein, so far, no amount has been paid. It is submitted by both the parties that main petition is pending consideration before the learned JMFC, Shiruguppa. Further, it is seen that a matrimonial case No.57/2013 was filed by the wife under 5 Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and the court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Bellary by order dated 28.04.2014 allowed the said petition and directed the petitioner herein to take back his wife to his marital home to lead happy marital life with the petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, the petitioner can contest the main petition seeking maintenance which is pending before the learned Magistrate. There are no grounds made out to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below.
7. Keeping open all the contentions of the petitioner, which could be raised before appropriate court, the present petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MNS/