Karnataka High Court
Lingappa S/O Yellappa Kuri vs Renukamma W/O Lingappa Kuri on 14 March, 2016
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200558/2015
BETWEEN
LINGAPPA S/O YELLAPPA KURI
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SALAGUNDA
TQ. SINDHANOOR
DISTRICT RAICHUR- 584 128
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
RE NUKAMMA W/O LINGAPPA KURI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O SALAGUNDA VILLGE
AT PRESENT LIVING AT HANCHINAL VILLAGE
TQ. SINDHANOOR
DISTRICT RAICHUR- 584 128
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED ON 15.04.2015 BY THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR IN CRI.
RP. NO.152/2014.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner, filed a Petition in Crl. Misc. No.1007/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindhanur, seeking maintenance from the respondent - husband u/s.125 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner herein appeared before the Trial Court and contested the proceedings. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) only per month as maintenance from the date of petition till her life time.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Crl.RP No.152/2014 and the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 15.4.2015 after re- appreciating the evidence on record found no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and 3 consequently dismissed the Revision Petition, confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the above said two orders the petitioner is before this Court.
4. On careful perusal of the order of the Trial Court and the revisional Court, it reveals that both the courts have appreciated the facts on the basis of the materials on record. Normally, while exercising powers u/s.482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is debarred from considering/re-appreciating the facts on record, when the Trial Court and the revisional Court have appreciated the evidence on record, unless it is shown to the Court that the Trial Court and the revisional court have not property appreciated the evidence on record and that caused miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.
5. Even otherwise, as could be seen from both the orders, there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent. It is also not disputed that they are living separately since long back. It is the allegation of the wife that the petitioner - husband has taken the second wife and living with her. 4
6. The Trial Court and the revisional Court have come to the conclusion that on facts, the wife has established that she is unable to maintain herself and she is residing in her parental house after being neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner herein.
7. Admittedly, the wife and husband are residing separately. The petitioner/husband has not filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights. That itself shows he don't want to live with his wife. Further added to that, the quantum of maintenance awarded is also based on the sound reasonings and also on the basis of the materials on record. As could be seen from the materials on record and the evidence of the parties, (which is furnished by the petitioner's counsel), the respondent herein has categorically stated in her evidence that the petitioner is having agricultural properties in his name and also he is getting sufficient income from the agricultural land. Apart from the above, he is owning cattles, tractor and two houses and he has got capacity to pay maintenance to her. This particular portion of the evidence has not been subjected to cross- 5 examination. However, a suggestion was made to the effect that the landed properties are the joint family properties. The petitioner has deposed that the properties are the joint family properties of the petitioner and his family members. He has not denied the existence of those properties which belong to his family and his share in the property. Therefore, looking from the above circumstances, considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month considering the status of the parties and also the requirement of the wife. When such reasoned orders are passed by two courts, this Court u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. cannot go deep into the facts of the case once again. Hence, in my opinion, the order passed by the Trial Court and the revisional Court does not call for interference.
Hence, this Petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*