Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vincent Correa vs Preethi Correa on 10 January, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                              -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:976
                                                     CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                            BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1610 OF 2024


                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    VINCENT CORREA
                         AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                         S/O LEO CORREA,
                         R/AT PADAVU MEGINA MANE,
                         KAIKAMBA, KULASHEKARA
                         MANGALORE-575 005.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                            (BY SRI. P PRITHVI KIRAN SETTY, ADVOCATE)


                   AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M        1.    PREETHI CORREA
Location: HIGH           D/O GREGORY AMBROSE D'SILVA
COURT OF                 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
                         R/AT PADAVU MEGINA MANE,
                         KAIKAMBA, KULASHEKARA
                         MANGALORE-575 005.

                   2.    VIYOLA PRATHVI CORREA
                         D/O VINCENT CORREA,
                         AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
                         R/AT PADAVU MEGINA MANE,
                         KAIKAMBA, KULASHEKARA
                         MANGALORE-575 005.
                                                             ...RESPONDENTS
                                      -2-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:976
                                               CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2024




     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401
CR.P.C, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGEMENT DATED 15.11.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.147/2024 UPHOLDING THE ORDER
IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS AND DISMISSING THE
APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:          HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH



                                ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and this matter is listed for admission along with I.A.No.1/2024 praying this Court to stay the impugned order.

2. Having perused the impugned order, the Trial Court while entertaining the petition filed under Section 20(d) of PWDV Act dated 26.03.2024 directed the petitioner to pay the entire NEET coaching fee of petitioner No.2 to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- since the daughter is pursuing MBBS and also appearing for the NEET examination for the M.D seat and taking into note of the petitioner No.2 is pursuing the education, the Trial Court -3- NC: 2025:KHC:976 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2024 taken note of the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.P.No.75/2012 between Sushil Kumar Chordia V/s Rekha observed that both interim maintenance as well as monetary relief towards the educational expenditure and also taken note of the material on record, invoked Section 20(d) directing the petitioner to meet the NEET examination fee and the same is also for Rs.1,25,000/-. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.147/2024. The First Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material available on record in paragraph No.9, comes to the conclusion that NEET coaching have been already commenced and therefore by efflux of time the relief claimed by 2nd respondent for educational expenses is infructuous. In this regard, 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit by stating that she had borrowed loan from her grand father and her uncle and aunt and she is required to repay the same, the same also taken note of by the First Appellate Court with regard to the affidavit filed by the petitioner.

-4-

NC: 2025:KHC:976 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2024

3. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would contend the 2nd petitioner has already attained majority and she is aged about 25 years and she can also earn and the same cannot be a ground when the daughter is pursuing Medical graduation that too for the masters and hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court in passing such an order of directing to meet the NEET coaching expenses of petitioner No.2 to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-.

4. The counsel appearing for revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the revision petitioner is in financial constraints and the same cannot be a ground and it is bounden and duty of the revision petitioner to meet the educational expenses of his daughter. Hence, no ground is made out.

5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER
i) The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. -5-

NC: 2025:KHC:976 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2024

ii) In view of dismissal of the revision petition, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59