Karnataka High Court
Dr.Shashidhar Subbanna vs Ms Veena Maravanthe on 25 October, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1104/2016
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 9/2016
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8573/2016
IN CRL.RP.1104/2016
BETWEEN
Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
S/o. Late Subbanna,
Aged about 46 years,
Resident at No.174/5A,
10th Cross, 3rd Block,
Thyagarajanagara,
Bangalore-560013.
...Petitioner
(Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna, Party-in-Person)
AND
Ms. Veena Maravanthe,
W/o. Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
Aged about 46 years,
Resident at No.117, 1st Floor,
3rd Main, 6th Block,
Banashankari III Stage,
Bangalore-560085.
...Respondent
2
(By Sri. P.P.Hegde, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to
set aside the order passed by Additional City Civil Judge
and Sessions Judge, (CCH-60) in Crl.A.No.1291/2014
order dated 18.11.2015 directing the petitioner to pay
maintenance of Rs.75,000/- P.M to the respondent from
the date of the order and also directed to pay monthly rent
of Rs.20,000/- for the residence of the respondent and
etc.,
IN CRL.RP. 9/2016
BETWEEN
Smt. Veena Maravanthe,
W/o. Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
Aged about 44 years,
Resident at No.117, 1st Floor,
3rd Main, 6th Block,
Banashankari III Stage,
Bangalore-560085.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. P.P.Hegde, Advocate)
AND
1. Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
S/o. Late Subbanna,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at 3161 N Hill Road,
APT-5, Porsmouth,
OHIO-45662
USA.
And also at
Department of Anaestheology
3
Southern OHIO Medical Centre/
SOMC Medical Care Foundation Inc.
#1805, 27th Street, Portsmouth
OHIO-45662-2640
USA.
2. Smt. Saraswathi
W/o. Late Subbanna,
Aged about 66 years
Permanent Address of
Both the Respondents
Resident at No.174/5A,
10th Cross, 3rd Block,
Thyagarajanagara,
Bengaluru-560028.
...Respondents
(Dr.Shashidhar Subbanna, Party-in-Person)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to
modify the judgment dated 18.11.2015 passed by the LX
Additional City Civil and Session Judge, (CCH-61),
Bangalore in Crl.A.No.1291/2014 and order dated
13.11.2014 passed by the 4th MMTC, Bangalore, in
Crl.Misc.No.117/2011 and by enhancing the quantum of
compensation form Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) to
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Rupees) and grant payment
of monthly maintenance form the date of petition.
IN CRL.P.8573/2016
BETWEEN
Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
S/o. Late Subbanna,
Aged about 46 years,
4
Resident at No.174/5A,
10th Cross, 3rd Block,
Thyagarajanagara,
Bangalore-560013.
...Petitioner
(Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna, Party-in-Person)
AND
Ms. Veena Maravanthe,
W/o. Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna,
Aged about 46 years,
Resident at No.117, 1st Floor,
3rd Main, 6th Block,
Banashankari III Stage,
Bangalore-560085.
...Respondent
(By Sri. P.P.Hegde, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the entire
proceedings in C.Misc.No.78/2016 of MMTC-IV, Bengaluru,
for the offence punishable under Section 125(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
These Petitions coming on for hearing this day, the
Court made the following : -
ORDER
Given the background that has culminated into these proceedings, the marriage between Shashidhara Subbanna (hereinafter referred to as 'husband') and Veena 5 Maravanthe (referred to as 'wife') took place on 23.4.2008 at Bengaluru and it was registered on the same day in the office of Marriage Officer, Basavanaugudi, Bengaluru. The husband was employed at USA; he is a medical doctor and holds three post graduate degrees (MD) and was working as anesthesiologist. The wife is also a post graduate, an M.Sc (Physics). A few days after the marriage, the husband went to USA and the wife joined him later, she left India on 3.5.2008 with her father-in-law and mother- in-law. According to the wife, when she was taken to Oralado by the husband for honey moon, the latter taunted her taking objections that the arrangements made in the marriage were not up to mark and that he did not get dowry to his expectation. He expressed unwillingness about the way the marriage was performed. Thereafter, bickerings started between them. There was mudslinging from either side. On 16.8.2008, the husband got his Green Card at USA, but there is an allegation by the wife that he did not process for obtaining Green Card for her. Since her Visa period was coming to an end, she had to 6 return to Bengaluru. After her return to India, she was not allowed to reside with her mother-in-law and therefore she was forced to take shelter in the houses of her sister and brother. Husband visited India in July 2009; when wife went to live with him, she was abused badly for the reason that she did not bring diamond ear studs. He avoided his wife. By that time she was pregnant, she gave birth to a baby girl on 2.9.2009. The baby was named Shravya. It is alleged that the husband avoided his wife and used to say that he did not want his wife and child and he wanted divorce. He instituted proceedings for divorce in MC.3543/2009 in the Family Court at Bengaluru.
2. The wife approached women police station, Basavanagudi and as a result, an FIR for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act came to be registered against the husband, his father and mother. The police laid charge sheet in the Court of II ACMM, Bengaluru, and 7 consequently, the husband faced prosecution in CC 17019/2011.
3. The wife also instituted another proceeding under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('Act' for short) which was registered as C.Misc.99/2010. She sought protection order under Section 18, residential order under Section 19 and interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- for herself and Rs.20,000/- for her child under Section 20 and compensation of Rs.One crore under Section 22 of the Act.
4. Petition for divorce filed by the husband was dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned ACMM, in CC 17019/2011, convicted the husband and his mother for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They both preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal 503/2013. The Sessions Court dismissed their appeal and aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court in the appeal, the husband and his mother have preferred 8 Criminal Revision Petitions before this Court in Crl.RPs 1612/2016 and 1613/2016.
5. The VIII ACMM, before whom C.Misc.799/2010, a proceeding under the provisions of the Act was pending, passed an order on 7.4.2010 awarding interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife, who preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court seeking enhancement of interim maintenance. The Sessions Court allowed the appeal in part, and enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. Thereafter, the petition C.Mis.799/2010 was transferred to another Court i.e., IV ACMM where the case was numbered as Cr.Mis.117/2011, and on 13.11.2014, the said Court partly allowed the petition and directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/- to the wife from the date of order, Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by this order, the wife preferred an appeal Crl.A.1291/2014 before the Sessions Court. The husband did not appear before 9 the Sessions Court though the notice was said to have been served on him. On 18.11.2015, the Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part and modified the order by enhancing the maintenance to Rs.75,000/- from Rs.40,000/- and further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards rent for the residence of wife, but it did not modify the compensation amount and the date from which the said sums are payable. Therefore, the wife has preferred Criminal Revision Petition 9/2016 seeking modification of the judgment dated 18.11.2015 of the Sessions Court; she has sought compensation to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the monthly maintenance to be paid from the date of petition.
6. The husband, aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court in the appeal, has preferred Criminal Revision Petition 1104/2016 and has sought for setting aside the said judgment and reconsideration of the same by the Sessions Court.
10
7. The husband has preferred another Criminal Revision Petition 8573/2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. After Crl.Mis.117/2011 came to be allowed partly, since the husband failed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/- to the wife; she filed a petition Crl.Mis.225/2014 under Section 31 of the Act. In the said petition, warrant was issued against the husband and he was committed to Civil Prison vide order dated 20.2.2016. The husband challenged the very registration of petition under Section 31 of the Act by filing Criminal Appeal 453/2016 before the Sessions Court. On 16.9.2016, the Sessions Court allowed the appeal and dismissed Crl.Mis.225/2014. It appears that the wife initiated one more proceeding under Section 125 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, for a direction to the husband to pay a sum of Rs.21,79,830/- being arrears of maintenance and the rent, ordered in Crl.Misc.117/2011. The husband has sought quashing of this proceeding.
11
8. In regard to petition filed by the wife, Crl.Misc.117/2011 under Section 12 of the Act for the various reliefs, the learned Magistrate has recorded a finding that since the husband and his mother were convicted in C.C.17019/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the wife's allegation that she was subjected to domestic violence as defined under Section 3
(b) of the Act would stand established. Secondly, when the wife wanted to have a child, the husband, being a doctor and having knowledge of high risk involved in 38 years old woman getting conceived, did not agree for begetting a child. He gave the reasons that he wanted financial stability, that the medical insurance that he had made did not cover pregnancy of the wife and in case she would conceive, it would adversely affect his finances. Then, the wife also went to USA, but she had to return to India, the reason being that the husband did not evince interest in getting her VISA extended although he secured a Green Card of that country. The wife had to return to 12 India, and the Magistrate has found that the wife had a compelling reason to return to India and she did not voluntarily desert her husband.
9. Yet another reason noticed by the Magistrate is wife's failure to clear TOFEL/GRE examination. On this aspect also, there are allegations from either side, but the Magistrate has observed that the conduct of the husband, even before the marriage, was as such that he put certain conditions on his wife that she should clear TOFEL/GRE examination, study further in USA and secure an employment in USA for attaining financial security. The wife wrote the examination, but did not qualify and in this regard the Magistrate has observed a contradictory stand taken by the husband and arrived at a conclusion that the marriage between them was a conditional one, which is not recognized.
10. The other conduct of the husband has also been observed by the Magistrate. He insisted on his wife to obtain B1 Visitor VISA so that she could deliver a baby in 13 USA to see that the child would naturally acquire citizenship of USA. But, the wife wanted to deliver child in India as she had her close relatives and knew the doctors here. He did not respect her feelings and expected his wife to go to India alone and obtain VISA to see that she would deliver a child at USA. It has been held by the Magistrate that the husband has failed to prove that he helped his wife obtain B1 VISA, and this was an instance of badly treating a wife during her pregnancy period. The husband, it is held, did not show interest to see the child. Noticing these instances being proved, the learned Magistrate has held that the wife has been able to prove that she was emotionally and mentally abused by the husband and that the wife and child were neglected by him. However the other allegations that her in laws did not allow her inside their house when she went there along with the child, that the husband had relationship with a woman by name Lesli at USA and that the accident that took place at Sringeri resulting in her sustaining fracture of 14 thigh bone was at the instance of the husband, are all not proved.
11. Having given findings as above with regard to domestic violence, the learned Magistrate, with regard to husband's income has taken note of the fact that he was working at SOMC Hospital, USA, and his present unemployment and his other liabilities towards house mortgage, insurance, tax etc., really did not matter as he was a highly qualified doctor and he would get an employment either at USA or India. In this back ground the Magistrate partly allowed the petition under Section 12 of the Act and directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- to the wife, bear educational and medical expenses of the child and pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
12. The Learned Sessions Judge, in the appeal filed by the wife, took note of husband's net pay at USA being USD52012.66, that the husband did not challenge the 15 Magistrate's order and also having regard to status of the parties, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs.75,000/- per month from Rs.40,000/- and further directed to pay monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- for the residence of the wife. The Sessions Judge did not enhance the compensation amount. It requires to be mentioned here that the husband and his mother did not contest this appeal.
13. I have heard the arguments of Sri Shashidhar Subbanna (husband) who appeared in person and Sri P.P.Hegde, the learned counsel for the wife.
14. It is the argument of Sri Shashidhar Subbanna that he did not come to know about Crl.A.1291/2014 since no notice was served on him. The learned Sessions Judge, in the said appeal enhanced the compensation to Rs.75,000/- per month besides directing him to pay Rs.20,000/- every month for the residence of his wife and daughter. His argument is that the Sessions Court has not assigned any reason for exorbitant enhancement. It appears that the Sessions Court has misdirected itself to 16 arrive at a conclusion that he is still working in USA, but the fact is otherwise; the circumstances that arose due to many cases filed against him and his mother by his wife compelled him to tender resignation to his employment to avoid his termination. He was not at all employed at USA to consider his income in US dollars. He tries to emphasize that he was unemployed at that time. With regard to his present status of his employment, he submitted that he is working in a private Medical College as a teaching faculty and is getting salary around Rs.70,000/- per month. Therefore, it was his argument, that given an opportunity, he will prove his present financial position so that the Court can come to a just decision for determining the maintenance amount. For this purpose he seeks remand of the appeal to the Court of Sessions Judge.
14.1. He argued further that before their marriage took place his wife was also working, she is a Post Graduate in M.Sc., (Physics) and she too is capable of 17 earning. This factor has not been considered by both the Courts below. In fact he wanted his wife to write some qualifying examination to see that she would secure an employment at USA; and he arranged for everything for her to prepare for examinations, but she did not pass those examinations, and for this he was not responsible. Even now she can work and earn money; her attitude to exploit him in the guise of obtaining maintenance should never be encouraged. Though he admits that he has responsibility to provide maintenance, but it has to be determined in the background of her working and earning capacity.
14.2. With regard to enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,00,00,000/- as has been sought by the wife, his argument is that this shows her greediness towards money and intention to make him a bankrupt. There are no reasons to enhance the compensation. Further, in regard to his Revision Petition 8573/2016 is concerned, he argued that petition filed by his wife under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C 18 for enforcing the order of maintenance is not maintainable. The Magistrate has ordered for payment of maintenance under the provisions of the Act, it can be enforced only under Section 31 of the said Act. His wife instituted proceedings in Crl.Mis.225/2014 under that Section and he preferred an appeal 453/2016 before the Sessions Court challenging the registration of petition under Section 31 of the Act. His appeal was allowed and with this any action to be taken for recovery of maintenance amount due attained finality. Therefore, another proceeding under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. He argued for quashing the proceedings in Crl.Mis.78/2016 initiated under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C.
15. Sri P.P.Hegde, learned counsel for the wife argued as follows : -
15.1. The learned Magistrate has, after appreciating the evidence, given findings about various kinds of domestic violence meted out on the wife by the husband.
Those findings are confirmed by the appellate Court. 19 Therefore, there are findings on facts which cannot be disturbed. The learned Sessions Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.75,000/- per month keeping in mind the actual earning of the husband at USA and his other possessions. Husband cannot escape from providing maintenance once domestic violence is proved. The enhancement of monthly maintenance made by the Sessions Judge in the appeal is based on husband's financial position and requirement of the wife befitting her status. He does not dispute that wife is a Post Graduate and working before her marriage, but his further argument is that because of the unkind attitude of the husband; the turmoil that she went through after the marriage and because of the accident that she met with; she suffered depression and is not in a position to work and earn. It was his submission that accident took place at the instance of the husband. For all these reasons, she sought enhancement in maintenance that was rightly granted, but denial of enhancement of compensation is not justifiable and therefore the wife's appeal needs to be allowed. 20
15.2. In regard to revision filed by the husband, the learned counsel submitted that notice was served on the husband. He did not appear before the appellate Court intentionally. His only intention is to delay the proceeding by getting the matter remanded. Absolutely there are no grounds to allow the husband's revision petition.
15.3. Pertaining to Criminal Petition 8573/2016, the learned counsel argued that whenever monetary reliefs are granted under the provisions of the Act, the same can be enforced under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C, or otherwise the orders of the Court go futile. He referred to Rule 6 (5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should fail.
16. In reply, Sri. Shashidhara Subbanna argued that the learned Magistrate has held that the accident that took place at Shringeri resulting in his wife being injured was not at his instance. Absolutely there are no materials, this ground cannot be considered for confirming the appellate 21 Court's order of enhancing the maintenance amount and arriving at a conclusion that his wife is not able to work.
17. I have perused the records and considered the arguments. The following points arise for discussion : -
(i) Has the appellate Court committed an error in enhancing maintenance to Rs.75,000/-
per month and providing Rs.20,000/- for her residence?
(ii) Whether an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act can be enforced according to Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C?
(iii) Are the proceedings in Crl.Mis.78/2016 under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. by the wife liable to be quashed?
(iv) What order?
22
Point No. (i):-
18. Fixation of maintenance is not a matter of mathematical certainty. The Courts have always found it a challenging task. It is quite obvious that the aggrieved person tries to exaggerate, and the person who is liable to pay maintenance also makes it a point to see that maintenance amount is fixed as far as possible at minimal. The witnesses examined on either side are usually partisan and therefore, it is a guess work for the Courts; endeavor should be towards providing reasonable maintenance. 'What is reasonable', is again relative to the standard of living.
19. The question becomes complicated if the aggrieved person has source of income, or she is capable of earning. The Courts cannot remain oblivious of this kind of a situation, necessarily they have to be considered while determining the monetary relief, and at the same time, in a zeal to provide monetary reliefs, if the Courts ignore the financial capacity of the husband, it only leads to chaos; 23 the husband being left with no other option but to face other consequences which is not the intendment of law. Therefore what is required is to strike a balance.
20. In this case, the learned Magistrate in para 29 of the order has observed as follows : -
"Further taking into note the earning capacity of the respondent in USA and also the fact that the petitioner is suffering from left thigh bone fracture and is unemployed since 2008, but has medical insurance of Rs.1,00,000/- for herself, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct to pay Rs.40,000/- per month to the petitioner towards the maintenance of herself and the child for food, shelter/rent and other miscellaneous expenses".
21. Having observed above, the Magistrate also ordered for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. When the wife questioned this order of the Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge considering the income of the 24 husband in US dollars and observing that the husband had not challenged the order of the Magistrate, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs.75,000/- and further directed the husband to pay Rs.20,000/- towards rent for the residence of the wife and her daughter.
22. The husband has seriously disputed his income as held and considered by the Sessions Judge, his argument was that because of frequent visits to India in connection with litigation, such a situation as to tender resignation arose to avoid his termination and therefore computation of maintenance in the background of US dollars was not correct. The Sessions Court cannot be found fault with for not considering this aspect as the husband did not contest the appeal filed by the wife. Be that as it may, if the judgment of the Sessions Court in the appeal is read, it is seen that he has not re-appreciated the evidence. He has drawn conclusion on certain assumptions. It is pertinent to mention here that the clear observation of the Magistrate is that the respondent i.e, 25 husband had resigned from his job at SOMC. Therefore in my view, the Sessions Court, being an appellate authority is not justified in enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs.75,000/- per month and providing Rs.20,000/- towards rent for residence of the wife. Re-appreciation of evidence was absolutely necessary. Point No. (i) is answered in affirmative.
Point No. (ii):-
23. This is purely a legal issue. Section 20 (1) of the Act reads as below : -
"20. Monetary reliefs.--(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,--
(a) the loss of earnings;
(b) the medical expenses;26
(c) the loss caused due to the
destruction, damage or removal of any
property from the control of the aggrieved person; and
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force".
24. Careful reading of this section indicates that a Magistrate deciding an application under Section 12 of the Act can also exercise power under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
25. Rule 6 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 is as follows : -
"6. Applications to the Magistrate.--
(1) Every application of the aggrieved person under section 12 shall be in Form II or as nearly as possible thereto.
(2) An aggrieved person may seek the assistance of the Protection Officer in preparing her application under sub-rule (1) and 27 forwarding the same to the concerned Magistrate.
(3) In case the aggrieved person is illiterate, the Protection Officer shall read over the application and explain to her the contents thereof.
(4) The affidavit to be filed under sub-
section (2) of section 23 shall be filed in Form III.
(5) The applications under section 12 shall be dealt with and the orders enforced in the same manner laid down under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)".
26. Therefore, from the above, it becomes amply clear that whenever an order under Section 20 or 22, or both is passed or any other relief that can be applied for under Section 12 of the Act is granted, it can be enforced in the manner laid down in Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. Section 31 of the Act is a penal provision for breach of protection order. Any order passed by the Magistrate must be capable of enforcement or otherwise the aggrieved 28 person will be deprived of justice. Point No. (ii) is therefore answered in affirmative.
Point No. (iii):-
27. In view of discussion on point No. (ii), the proceeding initiated by the wife in Crl.Misc.No. 78/2016 under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed. But, the Magistrate is at liberty to examine the enforceability of the order in the light of first proviso to Section 125 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Point No. (iv):-
28. While discussing point No. (i), it has been observed that enhancement of maintenance made by the Sessions Court does not stand to reason. When Crl.A.1291/2014 was filed, there was no appeal by the husband challenging the order of the Magistrate in Civil Misc.117/2011. But subsequently he preferred an appeal which is registered as Crl.A.454/2016. In this appeal, he has urged the grounds that he contended while arguing 29 before me. It is also one of his main contentions that he was not served with notice in Crl.A.1291/2014. It is not necessary to examine the truth in his contention. As his appeal is still under consideration, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Sessions Court in Crl.A.1291/2014 can be set aside in entirety to enable the Sessions Court to decide both the appeals together.
29. Before concluding, I find it absolutely essential to observe here that the husband and the wife are well qualified. If they have a sense of feeling that they are really educated, they must keep aside their differences. They have a child. Degrees conferred by the Universities are not the yardsticks to decide whether one is educated in real sense or not. If one does not know how to live in society and lead a civilized life, they are only literates, but not educated. The parties here should forget their ego at least for the sake of their daughter.
30. From this discussion, I proceed to pass the following order : -
30
(i) Criminal Revision Petition No. 9/2016 is dismissed.
(ii) Criminal Revision Petition No. 1104/2016 is allowed, the judgment dated 18.11.2015 in Crl.A.No.1291/2014 is set aside.
(iii) Crl.A.No. 1291/2014 is restored to the file of Appellate Court, which shall decide this appeal and Crl.A.454/2016 together in accordance with law.
(iv) The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge shall take appropriate steps to post the said two appeals to the same Court.
(v) Criminal Petition No. 8573/2016 is dismissed,
however the Magistrate is at liberty to
examine the maintainability of
Crl.Mis.78/2016 in the light of the first proviso to Section 125 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
(vi) The Appellate Court shall expedite the disposal of the two appeals.
(vii) The parties shall appear before the Court
where Crl.A.454/2016 is pending on
27.11.2018.
(viii) Till disposal of the appeals, the husband Dr.Shashidhar Subbanna shall pay regularly to 31 his wife maintenance amount as determined by the learned Magistrate in Crl. Misc. No. 117/2011 and bear all the expenses of his daughter.
Sd/-
JUDGE After pronouncement of judgment, the learned counsel for the wife makes a submission that the husband be directed to deposit at least Rs.10,00,000/- immediately as the wife is in need of money and that the daughter has to undergo eye surgery. He also submitted that the husband has not at all deposited a single pie after disposal of the case by the learned Magistrate.
With regard to this submission, it has to be stated that in the light of the direction being already given to the husband in the judgment that he should pay maintenance to the wife and bear all the expenses of his daughter, a separate direction is not necessary. If he fails, necessary 32 action can be taken by the wife as is permissible in law. However, if the daughter has to undergo eye surgery, the need for that purpose can be considered and for the time being the husband may be directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the Appellate Court in Crl.A.1291/2014. If the surgery expenses exceeds Rs.3,00,000/-, the wife is at liberty to make an appropriate application before the Appellate Court. The husband shall take this matter seriously and make payment instead of taking an obstinate stand preferring the jail to making payment. As observed above, the husband is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Appellate Court within four weeks from today in relation to Crl.A.1291/2014 and after such deposit, the Appellate Court shall release that amount in favour of the wife.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl/sd