Gurushanthaiah vs Siddagangamma on 6 July, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Gurushanthaiah vs Siddagangamma on 6 July, 2012

Bench: Subhash B. Adi

                           1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

         DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY, 2012

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO:5801/2011

BETWEEN:

GURUSHANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA,
R/AT C/O PANCHAKSHARAIAH,
HODALUR,KASABA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT
                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.V. HARISH, ADV.,)


AND:

1 SIDDAGANGAMMA
  AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
  W/O SIDDALINGAPPA,
  R/AT C/O VIJAYAKUMAR
  BHEEMASANDRA VILLAGE,
  KASABA HOBLI,
  KEB NINGAPPA BUILDING,
  TUMKUR TALUK

2 SIDDALINGAPPA
  AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
  S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
  R/AT OORUKERE VILLAGE,
  KASABA HOBLI,
  TUMKUR DISTRICT

3 ESAWARAMURTHY
  AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
                                2

  S/O SIDDALINGAPPA,
  R/AT OORUKERE VILLAGE,
  KASABA HOBLI,
  TUMKUR DISTRICT

4 VIJAYAKUMAR
  AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
  S/O SIDDALINGAPPA,
  R/AT BHEEMASANDRA VILLAGE,
  KEB NANJAPPA BUILDING,
  KASABA HOBLI,
  TUMKUR DISTRICT
                          ...RESPONDENTS


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS IN CRL.RP.NO.17/10
ON THE FILE OF THE P.O., FTC-III, TUMKUR, DATED 18.8.11
AND ORDER DATED 27.1.10 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. C.J., (JR.
DN.) AND JMFC, TUMKUR IN C.MISC.NO.45/08.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 18.08.2011 in Crl.R.P.No.17/2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court III, Tumkur and order dated 27.01.2010 in Crl.Misc.No.45/2008 on the file of JMFC, Tumkur.

2. Respondent No.1 has filed Mis. Case against the petitioner herein for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.Misc.No.74/2007. Respondents claiming to be the wife and children of the petitioner, they sought for 3 maintenance and the said Crl.Misc. was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month by way of monthly maintenance to respondent No.1. It is, in pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 had filed Crl.Misc. under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., for recovery of the said amount in Crl.Misc.No.45/2008.

3. There was another Crl.Misc.No.187/2009 both were clubbed and order was passed in Crl.Misc.No. 45/2008 directing issue of FLW against the petitioner for non-payment of maintenance amount as ordered.

4. Against the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the revision petition was filed by the petitioner, and the Revisional court also dismissed the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was not served with the notice in Crl.Misc. No.74/2007, as such, issue of FLW was not justified.

6. It is not in dispute that there is order for payment of maintenance and it has not been challenged. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order in Crl.Misc.No.74/2007, it was open to him to challenge the same. However, the said order being 4 in force and is executable, the learned Magistrate has rightly issued FLW for non-payment of maintenance. Except this no other order is passed. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the court below.

7. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief against the grant of maintenance if he so aggrieved.

In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2011 filed for stay does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE PMR*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court