Karnataka High Court
Sri H M Rudrakumar vs Smt. Gowramma H R on 8 December, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44754
CRL.RP No. 1501 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1501 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI H M RUDRAKUMAR
S/O D MAHESWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
BANASHANKARI NILAYA
2ND MAIN, GANDHINAGARA
BANGALORE-560009.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.M. RUDRAKUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA H R
W/O H M RUDRAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO 6, 4TH MAIN
2ND STAGE, BAPUJI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560026.
Digitally AND TEMPORARY
signed by NO 5, SRI KALESHWARA NILAYA
LAKSHMI T 1ST FLOOR, 12TH CROSS
Location: NEAR NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
High Court SHIVAPURA
of Karnataka NELAGADERANA HALLI
BANGALORE-560073.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C FILED BY
THE PARTY IN PERSON PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE 1ST APPELLANT COURT IN
CRL.A.NO.2612/2019 ORDER ON 27.09.2022, APPEAL FILED
U/S.29 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ACT IS DISMISSED AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44754
CRL.RP No. 1501 of 2022
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Court of LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.2612/2019.
2. The revision petitioner is the appellant in Crl.A.No.2612/2019. In the said appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DV Act'), the orders dated 17.12.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed by the MMTC III Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.151/2016 were sought to be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal as well as the interim application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 342 Cr.P.C.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has intentionally filed false affidavit alleging -3- NC: 2023:KHC:44754 CRL.RP No. 1501 of 2022 that he is liable to pay arrears of maintenance and further, the statement given before the Civil Court and Criminal miscellaneous proceedings are different and for which she has to be prosecuted. It is contended, false information is furnished to the Court which calls for an enquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 27.11.2019 while rejecting the application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has noted that the petition was filed for recovery of arrears of maintenance and instead of paying maintenance which was already ordered, application was filed for issuance of direction to conduct enquiry. It is observed that every incorrect /false statement does not make it incumbent for the Court to order the prosecution. The learned Magistrate then proceeded to issue FLW against the petitioner, by an order dated 17.12.2019.
5. In Crl.A.No.2612/2019, preferred by the petitioner herein before the learned Sessions Judge an -4- NC: 2023:KHC:44754 CRL.RP No. 1501 of 2022 application was filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. stating that the respondent herein has filed a false affidavit and therefore, committed offences under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196 to 200 and 201 of IPC and sought to initiate an enquiry. It is alleged that inspite of the appellant herein paying maintenance amounting to Rs.1,70,000/- the respondent filed a false affidavit stating that she has not been paid maintenance since 1½ years.
6. The respondent filed an application under Section 342 of Cr.P.C. stating that the application seeking enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was filed only to harass her by abusing the process of law. The learned Sessions vide impugned order dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C., and allowed the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 342 Cr.P.C.
7. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner as well as the respondent had approached this Court in Crl.RP No.196/2017 C/w Crl.RP Nos.248/2017 and -5- NC: 2023:KHC:44754 CRL.RP No. 1501 of 2022 427/2017. Those petitions were filed against the order passed by the trial Court awarding maintenance to the respondent. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, this Court remitted the matter to the trial Court to consider the application afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and further directed the husband i.e., petitioner herein to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/wife. Further, it was also observed that the wife and children are entitled to seek execution for recovery of rest of the amount at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month.
8. The contention of the petitioner that in spite of granting maintenance as ordered, the respondent/wife has filed a false affidavit stating that the maintenance amount was not paid cannot be adjudicated in this case. The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has rightly observed that there is no concrete evidence or documents placed before the Court to show the existing amount allegedly paid by -6- NC: 2023:KHC:44754 CRL.RP No. 1501 of 2022 the respondent for construction of the house and the observations made in O.S.No.4589/2017 or any other proceedings regarding false evidence is also not placed before the Court. Further, it is observed that there is no material on record to show that the cheques enumerated in the application are encashed by the respondent and her children and therefore, held that at this stage it cannot be inferred that the respondent has made false declaration.
9. It is brought to the notice of the Court that Crl.Misc.No.23/2016, which proceeding led to filing of revision petitions before this Court has been finally disposed of by the learned Magistrate. A copy of the order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the Court of MMTC III, Bengaluru, has been made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with certain other documents. The learned Magistrate has partly allowed the petition filed by the respondent/wife herein under Section 12 of the Protection of DV Act and directed the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to her -7- NC: 2023:KHC:44754 CRL.RP No. 1501 of 2022 for her livelihood etc., and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to her and Rs.20 lakhs each to two daughters.
10. The petitioner/party-in-person submits that he has challenged the above said order before the Appellate Court and the same is pending. He is at liberty to pursue his remedy before the Appellate Court wherein Crl.A.No.936/2023 preferred by him under Section 29 of DV Act is pending.
11. The revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2023 is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL