Karnataka High Court
Renuka W/O Pavadeppa Bilagond And Anr vs Pavadeppa S/O Chandappa Bailgond on 17 April, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15095/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Renuka W/o Pavadeppa Bailagond
Aged about 30 years, Occ: Household work,
C/o. Shivappa S/o. Basappa Halagiri,
R/o. Basarkod, Tq. Muddebihal, Dist. Bijapur
2. Parasuram S/o Pavadeppa Bailagaond
Aged about 12 years, Occ: Student,
Since minor R/by natural mother,
Petitioner No.1
... Petitioners
(By Sri Sanjeevkumar C. Patil, Advocate)
AND:
Pavadeppa S/o Chandappa Bailagond
Aged about 34 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Basarkod, Tq. Muddebihal,
Dist. Bijapur.
... Respondent
(Respondent Served and un-represented)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to call for the record and set aside the order
passed by the II Addl. Session Judge Bijapur at Bijapur in
Crl.Rev.P.No.228/2011 dated 06.09.2012 by modifying the
order passed by the J.M.F.C., Muddebihal at Muddebihal in
Crl.Misc.No.165/2008 dated 23.11.2011 and allow the
maintenance petition as preyed.
This petition is coming on for Final Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The wife and minor son filed the present criminal petition against the order dated 06.09.2012 made in Criminal Revision Petition No.228/2011 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur dismissing the revision petition confirming the maintenance awarded at Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and setting aside the maintenance awarded to the minor son at Rs.500/- per month in Crl.Misc.No.165/2008 by the JMFC, Muddebihal dated 23.11.2011.
3
2. The petitioners are the wife and son of the respondent filed Crl.Misc.No.165/2008 under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.1,000/- per month to the second petitioner contending that the marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 29.03.2000 in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of their wedlock, the second petitioner was born. About three years back, the respondent threatened the first petitioner that he would get second marriage and thrown out the petitioners from his house. Despite, the advice made by the elders, the respondent never came forward to take back the petitioners to his house. Therefore, they were forced to file a petition for maintenance.
3. The respondent/husband appeared, filed objections and contested the proceedings. 4
4. The learned Magistrate considering the evidence and material documents on record, by an order dated 23.11.2011 awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.500/- per month to the second petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband has filed revision petition in Criminal Revision Petition No.228/2011. The wife and son have not filed any revision petition for enhancement of maintenance. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur while dismissing the revision petition has proceeded to cancel the maintenance awarded in favour of the son. Hence, the present criminal petition is filed.
5. The respondent served and unrepresented.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5
7. Sri Sanjeevkumar C. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Sessions Judge, Bijapur erred in setting aside the maintenance awarded to the minor son while dismissing the revision petition without any basis. He further contended that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is pointed out to the respondent/husband to pay maintenance to both the wife and son in view of the provisions of Section 125(1)(a)(b) of Cr.P.C. He also contended that the learned Sessions Judge while answering point No.1 has held that the revision petitioner has not made out any ground to allow the revision petition to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and erroneously cancelled the maintenance awarded in favour of the minor son, which was impermissible. Therefore, sought to allow the present criminal petition setting aside the order passed by the revisional Court by restoring the maintenance granted by the Magistrate in favour of the minor son. 6
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. When there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as husband, wife and son, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioners who have no means to maintain themselves. The learned Magistrate considering the entire material on record recorded a finding that the petitioners have proved that the respondent has neglected to maintain them in spite of having sufficient means and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the first petitioner/wife and Rs.500/- to the second petitioner/minor son.
9. Though, the revision petition filed by the husband came to be dismissed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur canceling the maintenance awarded to the minor son only on the ground that the minor son is now staying with his 7 father, without there being any basis. Even though, the respondent has not stated either in the objections before the JMFC, Muddebihal or in the grounds urged before the Revisional Court, when the cause title of the revision petition looked into, it clearly depicts that the second respondent/son is aged about 10 years and was represented by his mother respondent No.1/mother. In the absence of any material document produced, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in holding that now the son is staying with his father, when it is not the case of the father that son is staying with him. Therefore, the impugned order passed the revisional Court canceling the maintenance awarded to the second petitioner/son is without any basis cannot be sustained.
10. For the reasons stated above, the criminal petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.09.2012 made in Criminal Revision Petition 8 No.228/2011 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur only insofar as cancellation of maintenance of Rs.500/- to the second petitioner/son is set aside. The order passed by the learned JMFC, Muddebihal dated 23.11.2011 made in Crl.Misc.No.165/2008 is restored.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt Ct: VK