Karnataka High Court
Shri. S. Raghavendra Rao vs Smt. S.R. Manjula on 31 March, 2016
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100039/2016
BETWEEN:
SHRI. S. RAGHAVENDRA RAO
S/O LATE ANJINEYULU,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: OPP: RELIANCE PETROL BUNK,
KUREKUPPA VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUKA,
BALLARI DISTRICT, NOW R/O WARD NO.36,
H.NO.340/366, 2ND FLOOR,
5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN CROSS,
RANGANATHAPURA,
KAMAKSHI IPALYA, BENGALURU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D. B. KARIGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. S. R. MANJULA
W/O S.RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
(D/O LATE S.R. RANGAPPA)
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.16, SADASHIVANAGAR,
SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI DISTRICT.
:2:
2. KUMARI TEJASHREE S.R.
D/O S. RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: H.NO.16, SADASHIVANAGAR,
SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI DISTRICT.
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER
NATURAL MOTHER,
I.E., THE RESPONDENT NO.1.
3. KUMARI KEERTHI SHALINI S.R.
D/O S. RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: H.NO.16, SADASHIVANAGAR,
SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI DISTRICT.
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER
NATURAL MOTHER,
I.E, THE RESPONDENT NO.1.
... RESPONDENTS
---
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION TO ALLOW
THE PETITION & THEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL PASSED BY THE
PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, IN ITS CRL.
APL.NO.11/2015 ON 06.02.2016 & THEREBY CONFIRMED
THE ORDER OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BALLARI IN
ITS CRL.MISC.NO. 67/2015 DTD.16.03.2015 U/S.12 OF THE
D.V. ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-Q.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
:3:
ORDER
The petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shiraguppa in allowing the application filed by the respondents under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 20015 and awarding them an interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ballari in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate, has preferred this revision petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders passed by the Courts below.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, he has married one Sharmila in accordance with the customs prevailing in their community and got the said marriage registered in the office of the Registrar of Marriages at Purusaiwakkam in Chennai, as evident from Annexure-A and from the said Sharmila he has a female daughter by name Soma R. Keerthana, born on 08.02.2005, as evident from the Birth Certificate produced at Annexure-B, issued :4: by the Corporation of Chennai. The learned counsel submits, the petitioner had never married the 1st respondent - Manjula and respondents 2 and 3 are not his children born through the 1st respondent and they are strangers to him.
4. The 1st respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the JMFC, Shiraguppa praying to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 324 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1981. Thereafter respondents have filed a petition in Crl.Misc.No.682/2014 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a petition in Crl.Misc.No.67/2015 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the JMFC, Shiraguppa and in Crl.Misc.No.682/2014, they field an application seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, without considering that the respondents are not his wife and children, has allowed the application and awarded interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned counsel submits, even the learned Sessions Judge has committed the same :5: mistake in dismissing the criminal appeal No.11/2015 filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate awarding interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondents. The learned counsel further submits, the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that one Sharmila is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, having married her in accordance with the customs prevailing in their community and getting the said marriage registered in the office of Registrar of Marriages at Purusaiwakkam in Chennai. He submits, except his salary income of Rs.25,000/- p.m. he has no other source of income and from the said salary income, he has to maintain his legally wedded wife and a daughter born out of the said legal marriage and his parents and that he is finding it difficult to pay maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate to the respondents, who are strangers to him. Therefore, he prays for allowing the revision petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below.
5. Admittedly, main criminal petition filed in Crl.Misc.No.682/2014 and Crl.Misc.No.67/2015 by the :6: respondents against the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act respectively are pending. In Crl.Misc.No.67/2015, the respondents have filed an application under Section 23 of the said Act, seeking interim maintenance. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the prima facie case put forth by the parties, allowed the application granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondents. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate awarding interim maintenance to the respondents, has challenged the same in Criminal Appeal No.11/2015 before the learned Session Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, on reconsideration of the case, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is against the said discretionary orders of the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
6. The learned Magistrate exercising his discretionary power, has allowed the application and awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondents, which was confirmed in :7: the appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. I have carefully gone through both the orders of both the Courts and I do not see any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
7. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.2/2016 filed for dispensation does not survive for consideration and the same is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab