Karnataka High Court
Baburao S/O Srimanth Kamble vs Lalita W/O Baburao Kamble on 20 April, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200957/2016
Between:
Baburao S/o Srimanth Kamble,
Age: 40 Years, Occ: Govt. Servant in
Krishna Bhagya Nigam Ltd.,
Sub-Division, JDG, Chigaralli Camp,
Post: Yalwar, R/o Vidya Nagar,
Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Jayanandayya, Advocate-Absent)
And:
Lalita W/o Baburao Kamble,
Age: 31 years, Occ: Household,
Now R/o Badruddin Colony,
Bidar.
... Respondent
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the impugned order passed bythe
learned II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge at Bidar dated
22.7.2016 in Crl. Rev. Petition No.20/216 and also quash
the order passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II at
Bidar dated 12.4.2016 in Crl.Misc. Petition No.76/2016.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying to quash the order dated 22.7.2016 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in Crl. Rev. Petition No.20/2016 and consequently to quash the order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC- II, Bidar in Crl.Misc.No.76/2016.
2. The brief facts of the case are that; the respondent-wife got married to the petitioner on 6.6.2010 and out of said marital wedlock, they have begotten two female and one male children. Thereafter, at the instigation of the respondent Nos.2 to 7, the petitioner changed his behavior and started giving both mental and physical torture and he refused to take the respondent back. The parents of the respondent have made several efforts to solve the matter, but all efforts to rejoin them, went in vain. As such, the respondent-wife is residing with her parents along with her children. It is further stated that the petitioner has neglected and refused to give maintenance to respondent and the minor children. In that light, the respondent-wife 3 instituted the proceedings under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act for grant of interim order of maintenance. The learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Bidar considering the application (I.A.No.1) has granted interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner filed a Crl.Misc.No.20/2016 before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar. The learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar by considering the merits of the case has dismissed the said petition as not maintainable and being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner before this Court.
3. Though, this case was called, the learned counsel for the petitioner remained absent. Since the revision petition cannot be dismissed for default, the case is considered on merits and disposed of by this order.
4. By going through the records, the main contention raised in the memorandum of petition are that; the impugned order passed by both the courts are not in 4 accordance with law. The trial Court ought not to have awarded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. He would further contend that the rejection of the petition as not maintainable is also not in accordance with law. The trial Court has violated the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On these grounds, he prayed for quashing the impugned orders passed by both the courts below.
5. I have gone through the orders passed by both the course below. By going through the records it indicates that the respondent No.1 is working as Engineer and getting salary of Rs.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/- p.m and has neglected to maintain the wife and children without just cause. The learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar after taking into consideration the contentions of the petition and the avocation of the respondent after noticing that there is violation of domestic violence by the respondent, has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- p.m. as an interim maintenance to the petitioner. The said order was came to be challenged in the Crl.Rev.P.No.20/2016 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar. In the said 5 order, the Court below has taken note of the provisions of Sec. 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. For the purpose of better understanding, the provisions of Sec. 29 of The D.V. Act, is hereby extracted as under;
" Sec. 29. Appeal:- There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date of which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later."
6. By going through the above provision of law there shall lie any appeal to the Court of Sessions within 30 days from the date of which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later. In that event any order is passed under the Domestic Violence Act an appeal lies under Sec. 29 of the Domestic Violence Act. But, the petitioner herein has preferred a Criminal Revision Petition, as such the said petition is not maintainable. On that ground, the revision petition came to be dismissed. After coming to know the fact that the appeal is the proper forum to file before the District Court, the petitioner- husband has not filed proper petition before the Court and 6 has filed criminal revision petition. Though he was having chance to convert the same into appeal or he could have withdrawn and filed the fresh appeal that is also not done for the reasons best know to him. As such, the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge by taking into consideration the provisions of law has rightly rejected the petition as not maintainable.
7. Looking from any angle that the petitioner has not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the orders of the trial Court. The conduct of the petition or itself indicates that even though, this petition was came to be filed, the same has not been persuaded, it indicates that he is only intended to drag on the proceedings. When he is working as an Engineer, the case is not represented, nor paid the maintenance, then under such circumstances, I feel that petition deserves to be dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/-, payable to the respondent-wife and minor children.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL