Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kamala vs Sri P Udayashankar on 22 March, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2016
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4383 OF 2013
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2170 OF 2013
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4383 OF 2013
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. KAMALA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O P. UDAYASHANKAR
D/O M. NARAYANA GOWDA.
2. KUMARI JAYASHREE
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
D/O P. UDAYASHANKAR.
3. MASTER PRUTHVI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
S/O P. UDAYASHANKAR.
PETITIONERS 2 & 3 ARE MINORS
REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER (1ST PETITIONER)
ALL ARE R/AT BANAHALLI VILLAGE
KAIWARA MAIN ROAD, CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA 562 101.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADV.,)
2
AND:-
SRI. P. UDAYASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O PATALAIAH
R/AT NO.283, MUNIMARAPPA BLOCK
SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD
NEAR MUSLIM COLONY, D.B. HALLI
BANGALORE-560 045.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: V.J. BENJAMINE, ADV.,)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LRD. ADHOC DIST.
AND S.J., F.T.C.-II, CHINTAMANI IN CRL.R.P.NO.76/2011
DATED 12.03.2013 BY PARTLY REVERSING THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., CHINTAMANI IN
C.MISC.NO.73/2008 DATED 26.03.2011, IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO REJECTION OF MAINTENANCE TO THE 1ST
PETR. AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2170 OF 2013
BETWEEN:-
SRI. P. UDAYASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE PATALAIAH
R/AT NO.282, MUNIMARAPPA BLOCK
SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD
NEAR MUSLIM COLONY, D.J. HALLI
BANGALORE-560 045.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: V.J. BENJAMINE, ADV.,)
AND:-
1. SMT. N. KAMALA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O P. UDAYASHANKAR
D/O M. NARAYANA GOWDA.
3
2. KUM. JAYASHREE
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
3. MAST. PRITHVI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS No.2 & 3 ARE THE CHILDREN
OF P. UDAYSHANKAR, BEING THE MINORS
REP. BY THEIR MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN
PRESENTLY ALL RESPONDENTS R/AT
BANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA MAIN ROAD
CHINTAMANI TALUK-563 125.
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADV.,)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PARTLY ALLOWED IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 12/3/2013 PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CRL.R.P.No.76/2011 GRANTING MAINTENANCE AT
RS.2,000/- PER MONTH TO RESPONDENT No.2 & 3 EACH
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADHOC DIST & S.J., F.T.C.-II,
CHINTHAMANI.
THESE CRL. PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Both these petitions are under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 12.3.2013 passed in Cr.R.P.No.76/2011 on the file of Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court-II, Chintamani.
4
2. One Smt. Kamala on her behalf and on behalf of her two minor children filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against her husband P. Udayashankar claiming maintenance in Misc.No.73/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Chintamani. The petition was opposed by her husband. Upon merits, the petition came to be partly allowed by order dated 26.03.2011 granting maintenance amounting to Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- each to the children. Aggrieved by the order of grant of maintenance, the wife preferred Crl.R.P.No.32/2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge and FTC-II, Chintamani. By order dated 30.09.2011, Criminal Revision Petition came to be partly allowed enhancing maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- to each of the children. It appears that after disposal of the Crl.R.P.No.32/2011 filed by the wife, husband also filed Crl.R.P.No.76/2011 aggrieved by the very same order passed by the Magistrate. By order dated 12.03.2013, 5 Crl.R.P.No.76/2011 filed by the husband came to be partly allowed. The maintenance granted to the wife came to be cancelled while enhancing maintenance granted to the children from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- each.
3. Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.76/2011 whereby maintenance granted to the wife came to be cancelled, the wife preferred Crl.P.No.4383/2013 to quash the order as to the cancellation of the maintenance granted to the wife. The husband on the other hand filed Crl.P.No.2170/2013 to quash the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.76/2011 to the extent of granting maintenance to the children at the rate of Rs.2,000/- each. Since both the petitions are arising out of the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.76/2011 on the file of Sessions Judge and FTC- II, Chintamani, they are disposed of by this common order.
4. Admittedly, Crl.R.P.No.32/2011 filed by the wife before the Sessions Judge and FTC-II, Chintamani came to 6 be partly allowed on 30.09.2011 enhancing maintenance granted to the wife from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- and maintenance granted to the children from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- each. Now the same Sessions Judge passed the order in Crl.R.P.No.76/2011 and cancelled the maintenance granted to the wife while enhancing maintenance granted to the children from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- each. Thus, there are two conflicting orders passed by the same Sessions Judge in two revision petitions filed against the order dated 26.03.2011 in Crl.Misc.No.73/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Chintamani. The husband has not challenged the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.32/2011 wherein the maintenance granted to the wife is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- and that of the children from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. Without setting aside the order in Crl.R.P.No.32/2011, the Crl.R.P.No.76/2011 filed against the very same order passed 7 by the Magistrate is not maintainable. As such, the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.76/2011 is liable to be quashed.
5. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The order dated 12.03.2013 passed in Crl.R.P.No.76/2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court-II, Chintamani is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR