Karnataka High Court
Smt Apurva J B vs Sri Avinash G on 21 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:29736
CRL.RP No. 312 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 312 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. APURVA J.B
W/O AVINASH .G
D/O BYANNA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
RESIDING AT JALIGE
JUTTANAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA .K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA N AND:
Location: High SRI. AVINASH .G
Court Of
Karnataka S/O GOPI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.83
4TH MAIN ROAD
8TH STAGE, J.P.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 76.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: SRIHARI .A.V., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
03.03.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI
IN CRL.A.NO.15017/2022 AND TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED
10.11.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI IN CRL.MISC.NO.224 OF 2022 BY
ENHANCING THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE AMOUNT FROM
RS.10,000/- (RUPEES TEN THOUSAND ONLY) TO RS.1,00,000/-
(RUPEES ONE LAKH ONLY) AS PRAYED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE
INTERIM APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT BEFORE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29736
CRL.RP No. 312 of 2023
THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI
IN CRL.MISC.NO.224 OF 2022.
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.224 of 2022 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), is impugning the order dated 10.11.2022 directing the respondent to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of petition till disposal, which was confirmed vide judgment dated 03.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.15017 of 2022 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Sitting at Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for brevity).
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner being the wife filed Crl.Misc.224 of 2022 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'DV Act'), claiming various reliefs under the Act, including the maintenance and compensation. The exparte order dated 10.11.2022 came to be passed directing the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:29736 CRL.RP No. 312 of 2023
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.15017 of 2022. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while confirming the impugned order of interim maintenance awarded by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard Sri K Raghavendra Gowda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A V Srihari, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent is an able bodied person and the petitioner is claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the Trial Court has awarded monthly maintenance of only Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is hardly aged 20 years and she wants to pursue her studies. Therefore, she is claiming maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the petition submitted that the impugned order is an -4- NC: 2023:KHC:29736 CRL.RP No. 312 of 2023 exparte order awarding interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondent is not agreeable to pay the said amount as he is not having any source of income. The Trial Court has specifically recorded the fact that the petitioner has not produced any documents to show the source of income of the respondent. However, it awarded Rs.10,000/- per month without any basis. The matter is still pending before the Trial Court. The parties may be directed to appear before the Trial Court to give their evidence. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:29736 CRL.RP No. 312 of 2023 REASONS
8. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband. The petitioner contends that she is claiming maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent. According to her, the respondent is doing real estate business having several properties in his name, but neglected to maintain her. On the other hand, he started demanded dowry and threw her out of the house.
9. It was brought to the notice of the Court that respondent has filed MC No.64 of 2021 against the petitioner seeking divorce on the ground that the petitioner is having extra martial relationship and the said case is still pending for consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking maintenance under Section 12 of the DV Act. The Trial Court has passed the impugned order exparte awarding interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. It is specifically stated in the interim order that, the petitioner has not produced any documents to show the exact source of income of the respondent. Considering the contention taken by the petitioner, the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was awarded by the Trial Court. However, the interim order -6- NC: 2023:KHC:29736 CRL.RP No. 312 of 2023 passed by the Trial Court is subject to modification after appearance of the respondent.
10. Admittedly, the respondent has appeared before the Trial Court. The impugned order is dated 10.11.2022. It is brought tot the notice of this Court that even the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- is not being paid by the respondent regularly.
11. On merits, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the absence of any materials that are produced by either of the parties. It is for the Trial Court to consider the materials on record, if any produced by the petitioner and the respondent and proceed with the matter. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-