Karnataka High Court
Dr.Shegedar Praveen. K vs Maheshwari S. Hiremath & Anr on 20 July, 2020
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200054/2020
Between:
Dr.Shegedar Praveen K
S/o Sri Karabasappa V.Shegedar,
Age 38 years, Occ. Reader in
Government Ayurvedi Medical College and Hospital,
R/o Door No.40, Mettuteeruvu, Kottar,
Nagarcoil, Post Kanyakumari,
Dist. Tamilnadu - 629002 and also
Permanent R/o 38A, Post Dongaon (M)
via Kamalnagar, Tq. Aland, Dist. Bidar - 585 417.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Hanmantraya Sindol, Advocate)
And:
1. Maheshwari S.Hiremath
W/o Dr.Shegedar Praveen,
Age 36 years, Occ. Pvt. Service
R/o No.2-491, Maheshwar Nilaya,
Jagat, Kalaburagi - 585 101.
2. Vrushank S/o Dr.Shegedar Praveen,
Age 3 years, minor under guardian of his
natural mother respondent No.1.
... Respondents
(By Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath, Advocate for R1;
R2 is minor under guardian of R1)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure praying to allow this criminal
petition and quash the impugned order dated 17.10.2019
passed in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018 by the District Judge,
Family Court at Kalaburagi as per Annexure-K to meet the
ends of justice and equity.
This petition having been heard and reserved for
orders on 13.07.2020, coming on for "Pronouncement of
order" this day, the Court made the following;
ORDER
(Through Virtual Court) The above petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') calling in question the order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018, by the District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Family Court').
2. Brief facts of the case are as under;
The petitioner is husband of respondent No.1 and they are blessed with a son-the second respondent. The petitioner filed petition before the Family Court under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 3 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against respondent No.1, in M.C.No.265/2018. There was an order passed by the Family Court acting under Section 24 of the Act, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent No.1.
3. Further it is stated that the respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a Crl.Misc.No.191/2018 against the petitioner herein under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for seeking monthly maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- each. In the said Crl.Misc.No.191/2018, an interim application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for seeking interim maintenance to both wife and son who are respondents No.1 and 2 herein. The Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018 has passed order on 17.10.2019 there by granted an interim maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the son who is respondent 4 No.2 herein (the petitioner No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018).
4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018, granting interim maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/son, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that on earlier occasion in M.C.No.265/2018, the Family Court has considered the application filed under Section 24 of the Act and has awarded an interim maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent No.1 herein and also it was discussed in the said order regarding grant of interim maintenance to the respondent No.2. Therefore, there was no occasion once again filing of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for seeking 5 interim maintenance and an order of granting of interim maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.2 herein. Therefore, submitted that when I.A.No.4, in MC No.265/2018 filed under Section 24 of the Act was considered and in the said order, it was also discussed regarding payment of interim maintenance to grant or not to grant to the son. Therefore, once again considering the same question and granting the interim maintenance to the respondent No.2 is not correct. Therefore, submitted it is nothing but grant of interim maintenance at the second time on the same cause of action and subject matter, which is not correct. Therefore, prayed to set-aside the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents (who are wife and son) herein submitted that in M.C.No.265/2018, the Family Court has granted an interim maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 - wife only and did not grant any interim maintenance to the 6 son who is respondent No.2 herein. Therefore, the Family Court by considering this aspect has passed the order in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018 and has granted interim maintenance only to the respondent No.2 - son but not granted to the respondent No.1 - wife. Therefore, by virtue of the order passed in these two proceedings, both wife and son have got an order of interim maintenance and it is not amounting to duplication of grant of interim maintenance. Hence, submitted that on previous occasion the Family Court has only ordered interim maintenance to the wife and subsequently, the Family Court has refused to grant interim maintenance to the wife and granted only to the son. Therefore, in this way both wife and son are ordered to be paid interim maintenance by the petitioner herein and which do not require any interference by this court. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Upon considering the entire petition which is annexed with the records which were submitted before 7 the Family Court that the petitioner herein has filed M.C.No.265/2018 under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Act and in the said proceedings, the Family Court upon the application filed under Section 24 of the Act has granted interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife who is respondent No.1 herein. In the said M.C.No.265/.2018, the Family Court had not granted any interim maintenance to the son - respondent No.2. Even though while passing order on I.A.No.4, the Family Court had discussed regarding the son also but specifically did not pass order of granting interim maintenance in favour of son. The Family Court while passing of order on I.A.No.4 had observed that even though the respondent No.1 is getting salary of Rs.10,350/- per month, but, that is not sufficient for the wife and son to meet out all expenses and to maintain herself and her son. Even though it is observed in the said order on I.A.No.4 but the Family 8 Court had not granted interim maintenance to the son - respondent No.2 herein.
8. The respondent No.1-wife and respondent No.2-son have filed Crl.Misc.No.191/2018 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for seeking interim maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- each and pending the said petition the respondents herein have filed an interim application for grant of interim maintenance once again but the Family Court has granted the interim maintenance by acting under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, only to the respondent No.2 herein (petitioner No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018) an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018 had not granted interim maintenance to the respondent No.1 on the ground that she was already provided interim maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month in MC No.265/2018. Thus, in this way, during proceedings pending between each other as stated above, now both wife and son are getting interim maintenance. The order 9 passed by the Family Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in granting interim maintenance to the respondent No.2
- son is not amounting to duplication of granting of interim maintenance. On earlier occasion in M.C.No.265/2018 the respondent No.1 is getting interim maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month and in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018, only the respondent No.2
- son is getting interim maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a duplication of awarding of interim maintenance by the Family Court. Just because while considering I.A.No.4 in MC No.265/2018, by considering the aspect of son also but the Family Court did not grant interim maintenance to the son but has only granted to the wife. Now the interim maintenance to be provided to the son is being taken care of by the order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018. Therefore, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed 10 by the Family Court cannot be said as illegal or perverse. Therefore, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is being devoid of merits as the petitioner fails to convince this Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in the present set of facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
In terms of the above, I.A.No.1/2020 for stay has become infructuous. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2020 is disposed of as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn