Bangalore District Court
Petitioner : 1. Sri N.Raghunath vs / : 1. Smt.Shashikala.G on 16 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62)
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2018
PRESENT :- SRI.SUNILDUTT ANNAPPA CHIKKORDE, M.A. L.L.M
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, (CCH-62)
Criminal Appeal No. 887/2017
Appellant/ petitioner : 1. Sri N.Raghunath
S/o.Nagendrappa
Aged about 51 years
R/a.No.S-7, 1st Cross, Behind
HAL P.S., Near HAL Convention
Centre, Bangalore-37.
(By Sri.B.R.R., Adv)
V/s.
Respondent / : 1. Smt.Shashikala.G
petitioner W.o.N.Raghunath
D/o.Lae Giriyappa
Aged about 48 years
2. Kumari Yukthi
Do/o.N.Raghunath
Aged abut 14 years
3. Kumari Dhruthi
D/o.N.Raghunath
Aged about 9 years
Since Respondents No.2 and 3
are Minors Rep. by their
Natural Guardina,
Smt.Shashikala.G, All the
respondents are R/a. No.74, 3rd
Cross, 1st Main, Nrupathunga
Extension, J.C. Rd., Bangalore-
2 Crl.A. No.887/2017
32.
(By Sri.Adinarayanappa, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
The appellant/respondent herein preferred this appeal under Sec.29 of the Domestic Violence Act, praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned IV MMTC, Bengaluru in C.Misc. No.33/2016 dated 2.6.17 and to direct the lower court to reconsider the application filed by the respondent for grant of interim relief applying the procedure prescribed for trail of summons case under the Cr.P.C., after giving due opportunity to the appellant and to lead evidence other relief's as deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. This appeal was initially filed and pending before CCH LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-64, Bangalore till 9.5.2018 but subsequently on 29.5.2018 on the basis of order passed by Hon'ble Prl. City and Civil and Sessions Judge Court, Bangalore in Crl. Misc. 1397/2018 dt.4.5.2018, the said court transferred this entire papers of this case to this Court since the connected appeal No.895/2017 pending on the file of this Court for the purpose 3 Crl.A. No.887/2017 of disposal as per the Law. After receipt of the said record counsel for both the parties appeared before this court on 30.6.2018.
3. The appellant is respondent in the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as petitioners and respondent as per their ranks in the Court below.
4. The facts leading to the appeal are as under:
The appellant/respondent got married to the respondent No.1/petitioner on 21.5.2001 at Lakshmamma Thimmaiah Kalyana Mantapa, Huliyar Road, Hiriyur Town, Chitradurga District, Bangalore as per the Hindu customs and rites, after the marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1, appellant went to his job at Dandeli Paper Mill, the respondent is very arrogant, indifferent, abusive and quarrelsome towards this appellant and his parents and she was suspecting for everything, if he speaks to his aunt, sisters, cousins, relatives or with any female she used to make a big scene and crafting illegal relationship with them. 4 Crl.A. No.887/2017 Respondent No.1 used to discuss every things with her parents, even her parents instead of advising her to mend her behaviour they used to give ill-advise to her and also they used to threaten that they would going to file false dowry case and other connected cases by saying that "Law is always infavour of Females". The respondent No.1 demanded the appellant to send his mother to a separate house or to move to a house separately, however the appellant refused the same as his mother is aged is also suffering from old age health problems, ultimately she succeeded the same in the year 2007. Every time the respondent till treated him infront of the relatives stating that she would have got better proposal and would have been happier and the respondent even developed habit of harassing torturing and also threatening that she would commit suicide and spoiled all his matrimonial feelings. The respondent used to stop talking with the appellant without any reason in that time she was not cooking food and the appellant depended on hotels food and she totally took control on the home, pick a quarrel if he invites nor talks to his relatives, she used to make a big scene and he should give account of single penny, every day the 5 Crl.A. No.887/2017 respondent would create one or the other scene abusing the appellant and his mother infront of relatives. The appellant further submitted that the respondent used to suspect for everything and also called to his relatives and used to make false allegations against his character, sometimes she used to visit his office surprisingly and abused infornt of his colleagues and office staff. Several times relatives and well wishers tired to convince the respondent to manage the family environment in a happy and respectable way but the respondent did not heed to any of their advice one bad incident happened for a small reason the respondent and her family members assaulted the appellant and demanded him to give divorce and left the matrimonial home. Thereafter the respondent filed a false case under the domestic violence case before the IV MMTC in Crl. Misc. No.33/2016 against the appellant along with an application under Section 23 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for maintenance. The court below without granting any opportunity to the appellant to defend his case and without considering any document produced by the appellant to show his source of income and without conducting any enquiry 6 Crl.A. No.887/2017 passed impugned order on imaginary grounds taken by the respondent in the above said petition, hence the appellant having no other alternative and efficacious remedy have approached this court by filing this appeal.
5. After hearing both sides the Court below passed the order directing the respondent to pay interim monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner/respondent No.1 towards maintenance till the disposal of the main petition.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellant/respondent approached this court in an appeal challenging the propriety and correctness of the order on the following grounds:
7. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal perverse and oppose to law, the court below erred in passing an order on I.A. No.1 on imaginary grounds taken by the respondent, with out granting an opportunity to the appellant to lead his evidence and the order is arbitrary, unjust and against the procedure. The 7 Crl.A. No.887/2017 court below erred by wrongly interpreted the Hon'ble High Court order, however as per the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2011(3), KCCR 2221 Krishna Murthy Nookula V/s. T.Savitha, it is observed that 'the learned Magistrate was required to have held on enquiry as prescribed in the Cr.P.C., (including above) and then to order his finding" as per the observation made in the said citation this Court has also not yet conducted the enquiry in respect of the paryer made by the petitioner in interim application. Hence, it is just and necessary to reject the prayer of the petitioner and direct to lead evidence in the said matter. The court below failed to notice that the appellant had to file objection to the main petition as well as the applications filed by the respondent and also the appellant had declare his monthly income and his assets, however the court below did not consider the documents produced by the appellant. The court erred in considering the documents produced by the respondent as the respondent has not produced a single paper of document to show the appellant source of income however the appellant produce all the documents to show his source of income and his financial status the court below 8 Crl.A. No.887/2017 without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant passed the impugned order on imaginary grounds made by the respondent in her application. The curt below failed to notice that the respondent after filing divorce petition in MC No.530/15, has filed above false case and lodged false dory harassment case. The court below failed to notice that the respondent has not come with clean hands that the respondent voluntarily left the him along with children. The court below failed to notice that the appellant taking care of day to day affairs of family and entire family expenditure including school fees and also the court below failed to notice that the respondent is also a Government Employee working in Backward Class Welfare Department and earning more than Rs.35,000/- salary p.m. and the respondent able to maintain herself and their children. The learned judge court below failed to consider the documents produced by the appellant at the time of filing the statement of objections to the main petition which clearly shows his financial status and source of income. The court below failed to observe that the respondent is well qualified women cannot claim maintenance from her husband as she is getting Rs.35,000/- p.m., The 9 Crl.A. No.887/2017 court below failed to notice that in the documents filed the respondent along with the petition does not reveal the source of income of the appellant only on the basis of respondent statement the court passed impugned order for a judge amount. The court below failed to notice that the respondent suppresses material facts that the appellant already filed a petition for directing the respondent as such to take revenge she filed the above case. The court below failed to conduct an inquiry as required under Section 23 or 28 of the Act and passed a impugned order with out considering the prima facie case and the impugned order of the court below is otherwise opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant as a dutiful father he paid all the educations expenses of his daughters fees, books, uniforms, shoes and other expenses till today. The court below failed to note the appellant filed a detailed objection statement to the main petition where the appellant is clearly stated that the appellant purchased a site in the name of his wife i.e., first respondent by availing loan from the financial institutions, towards that loan amount the appellant is paying a sum of Rs.16,917/- and paying car loan a sum of Rs.11,800/- totally 10 Crl.A. No.887/2017 he is paying Rs.28,717/- hence he is unable to pay exorbitant amount which ordered by court below. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 2.6.17 in C.Misc. No.33/2016 by the Learned IV M.M.T.C., Bangalore by allowing the appeal.
8. In response to the notice the respondents appeared through counsel and submitted that the order passed by the court below is just and proper and it is based on the sound principles of law and facts. So interference by this Court in the findings given by the Court below is not required. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
9. Heard both sides and perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for appellant.
10. The following points arise for my consideration;
1. Whether the order passed by the Court below in respect of order on I.A. No.1 filed under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 awarding interim maintainace of Rs.6,000/- p.m., in favour of petitioners in Crl. Misc. 33/2016 is erroneous, illegal 11 Crl.A. No.887/2017 and requires any interference by this court?
2. What order?
11. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In partly in affirmative and partly in negative, Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
12. Point No.1:- It is the specific case of the appellant that appellant got married to the respondent No.1 on 21.5.2001 at Lakshmamma Thimmaiah Kalyana Mantapa, Huliyar road, Hiriyur town, Chitradurga District, Bangalore as per the customs and rights in their community and after the marriage, respondent No.1 went to her job at Dandeli paper mill. It is also the specific case of the appellant that respondent No.1 is a very arrogant, indifferent, abusive and quarrel sum towards him and his parents and she was suspecting for every thing, if he specks to his aunty, cousins, relatives or with any female she used to make a big scene and crafting illegal relationship with them and she used to discuss everything with her parents and even her parents instead of advising her to mend her behavior they used to 12 Crl.A. No.887/2017 give ill advice to her and they also threatened that they would file false dowry case and other connected cases by saying that "Law is always in favour of females". It is also specific case of the appellant that respondent No.1 demanded the appellant to send his mother to separate house or to move a house separately however he refused the same as his mother is aged and also suffering from old age health problems, ultimately she succeeded in the year 2007 and every time the respondent No.1 ill-treated him in front of the relatives stating that she would have got better proposal and would have been happier and the respondent even developed habit of harassing torturing and also threatening that she would commit suicide and spoiled all his matrimonial feelings. The respondent used to stop talking with the appellant without any reason in that time she was not cooking food and the appellant depended on hotels food and she totally took control on the home, pick a quarrel if he invites nor talks to his relatives, she used to make a big scene and he should give account of single penny, every day the respondent would create one or the other scene abusing the appellant and his mother infront of relatives. The appellant further submitted 13 Crl.A. No.887/2017 that the respondent used to suspect for everything and also called to his relatives and used to make false allegations against his character, sometimes she used to visit his office surprisingly and abused infront of his colleagues and office staff. Several times relatives and well wishers tired to convince the respondent to manage the family environment in a happy and respectable way but the respondent did not heed to any of their advice one bad incident happened for a small reason the respondent and her family members assaulted the appellant and demanded him to give divorce and left the matrimonial home. Thereafter the respondent filed a false case under the domestic violence case before the IV MMTC in Crl. Misc. No.33/2016 against the appellant along with an application under Section 23 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for maintenance. The court below without granting any opportunity to the appellant to defend his case and without considering any document produced by the appellant to show his source of income and without conducting any enquiry passed impugned order on imaginary grounds taken by the respondent in the above said petition, hence the appellant 14 Crl.A. No.887/2017 having no other alternative and efficacious remedy have approached this court by filing this appeal inview of the grounds set out therein at para No.1 to 17 and prays for allowing this appeal to set aside impugned order dated 2.6.2017 passed by 4th MMTC, Bangalore and also sought for direction to the court below to consider the application filed by respondent for grant of interim relief after giving due opportunity to the appellant and to lead evidence and other relief's as deems fit and proper in the above circumstances as per the law in the interest of justice and equity.
13. Whereas on the other hand the respondents appeared through their counsel on the date fixed for their appearance before LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Court, CCH-64, Bangalore. Subsequent to transfer of this appeal from the said court to this court, the learned counsel for respondent argued on merits of this appeal by supporting the view taken by the court below in respect of impugned order under this appeal and there is no error or illegality committed by the court below in respect of factual and legal aspect with regard to order of interim maintenance directed 15 Crl.A. No.887/2017 as against the respondent in Crl. Misc.33/2016 for Rs.6,000/- p.m., to the petitioner from the date of petition till disposal of the said case.
14. On going through the rival contention of both the parties in the light of grounds set out in the appeal memo and as well as the impugned order under this appeal and also certified copy of the main petition in Crl. Mic.33/2016, certified copy of the Application I.A. No.1 i.e., application filed under order Section 23 of DV Act, with an affidavit of applicant/petitioner in the said case seeking order for grant of ex-parte interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- p.m., from respondent, certified copy of the statement of objections dt.10.4.2017 and also certified copy of the separate memo filed by the advocate for respondent in the same date for adopting contents of the objection filed to the main petition as objection to I.A. No.1 and 12 copies of the statement of account pertains to the present appellant, list of documents dt.18.5.2017, certified copy of the salary calculation of the respondent plus deductions filed by Advocate for Respondent in Cr. Misc.33/2016. It is pertinent to note that there is no 16 Crl.A. No.887/2017 dispute with regard to the relationship of parties to this case. i.e., the appellant is the husband of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and 3 are the children of appellant and respondent No.1. It is further pertinent to note that the dispute between both the parties so far as the impugned order with regard to the grant of interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m., to the first respondent is concerned, present appellant disputed the quantum of interim maintenance awarded in the above criminal Misc. Case. So far as it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for appellant on the ground that court below passed the impugned order without granting an opportunity to the appellant to lead his evidence on I.A. No.1 though appellant had filed objection to the main petition and as well as application filed by the respondent and also appellant had declared his monthly income and his assets, however the court below did not consider the document produced by the appellant and thereby court below has committed error though respondent has not produced a single paper, she would have got better proposal and would have been happy and respondent even developed habit of harassing, torturing 17 Crl.A. No.887/2017 and threatening that she would commit suicide and spoiled his matrimonial feelings and respondent used to stop talking with appellant without any reason and in that time she was not cooking food and appellant dependent on hotel food and she totally took control over the home and pick a quarrel if he talks with relatives, cousins and she used to make a big scene and he should give account of single penny, every day respondent would create one or the other reason abusing the appellant and his mother in front of relatives and also on the ground that one bad incident happened for a small reason and her family members assaulted the appellant and demanded him to give divorce and left the matrimonial home and thereafter respondent filed a false case under domestic violence before 4th MMTC in Misc. No.33/2016 against the appellant and also the interim application under Section 23 of the said Act but the court below without granting opportunity to the appellant to defend his case and without considering any document produced by the appellant to show his source of income and also without conducting any enquiry passed impugned order on imaginary grounds taken by the respondent and also on the ground that court below 18 Crl.A. No.887/2017 failed to notice that respondent after filing the divorce petition in Crl. Misc. 530/2015 has filed the said Crl. Misc. case and lodged a false dowry harassment case. It is also the specific ground of the appellant court below failed to notice that the appellant taking care of day today affairs of family and family expenditure including school fees and as well as court below failed to notice that respondent is also a Government Employee working in Back Ward Class Welfare Department and earning more than Rs.35,000/- salary per month and therefore, she is able to maintain herself and children and as well as on the ground that Court below wrongly interpreted order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in a case between Krishna Murthy Nookula V/s. Y.Savitha reported in 2011 (3) KCCR Page 2221 and in the said case it is observed that the learned Magistrate was required to have held on enquiry as prescribed under Cr.P.C., (including above) and then to record his finding and as per the said observation made in the said case Law the Court below has not yet conducted the enquiry in respect of the prayer made by the petitioner in an interim application and as well as on the ground that several documents and 19 Crl.A. No.887/2017 materials produced by appellant about discharge of his duties or obligation to maintain his children i.e., respondent No.2 and 3, which were not considered by the court below and also on the ground that appellant had declared his monthly income, his assets, however the court below did not consider the documents produced in this regard. Inview of these circumstances the learned counsel for appellant submitted that the order under revision is erroneous, illegal persevere and not sustainable under the law and thereby the same is liable to be set aside and in support of her arguments the learned counsel for appellant relied on the following case laws.
1. ILR 2005 KAR 4981 between Dr.E.Shanthi V/s. Dr.H.K.Vasudevi wherein it is held as under;
(A) HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, SECTION 24- INTERIM MAINTENANCE -
Petitioner wife a doctor claiming interim maintainace and litigation expenses -
application for interim maintenance dismissed by Trial Court on the ground that 20 Crl.A. No.887/2017 she is also attending as a doctor elsewhere and her name is on the board of the clinic-HELD-When the petitioner was practicing prior to marriage, when her name continues on the board of the clinic, the Trial is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. There is no difficulty for the petitioner to work as a doctor. Even if the petitioner is not working as a doctor in the clinic of her brother, since there are no impediments for her to work along with her brother as a doctor and when she is capable of earning, this court is of the opinion that the trial court is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. When the petitioner is capable of earning and having required qualification and that when she was working as a doctor prior to marriage, there cannot be any 21 Crl.A. No.887/2017 difficulty for her to continue the same profession.
Therefore, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot come to the aid of such person.
2. 200(3) G.L.H. 49 SC between Rohtash Singh V/s. Smt.Ramendri and Ors. Wherein it is held as under;
(c) If, she deserted the matrimonial home with her own will and wish without any reason or cause and refuses to live with her husband.
(d) If she is a working woman and she can maintain herself.
15. On considering the above grounds of the appellant in the light of impugned order under this appeal it is crystal clear that the court below while passing order on I.A. No.1 in Crl. Misc. 33/2016, particularly at para No.5 and 6 are taken into consideration it clearly goes to show that there is no specific reference made by the court below with regard to above material contentions taken by the appellant in his 22 Crl.A. No.887/2017 objection statement filed in the above case, except referring that respondent filed a detailed objection denying all the averments made in the application and as well as there is no specific observation made by the court below with regard to the aspect that though there is no denial of relationship between the parties but remaining aspects which have been specifically contended before the court below those were not dealt with in order to from opinion. Apart from that though there is a reference of the case law of K.Kumar V/s. Smt.Leena and Another reported in 2010 KCCR page 319 but view expressed in the said case law how it was made applicable in the said case while disposing I.A. No.1 by the Court below is not made clear. It is also pertinent to note that as per the view taken by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a case law reported in 2011 (3) KCCR page 2221 in Krishnamurthy Nookula V/s. Y.Savitha referred at para No.5 of the grounds of the appeal by the appellant before this court, it is clear that the Court below before hearing on I.A. No.1 filed under Section 23 of the DV Act, no enquiry was held. Apart from this it is also pertinent to note that the Court below failed to consider the material aspect of 23 Crl.A. No.887/2017 the case that so far as respondent No.1 is concerned though she is the legally wedded wife of the appellant, as on the date of filing of the above said Crl. Misc. Case before the court below she was in Government Service and drawing monthly salary, according to appellant respondent was earning more than Rs.35,000/- p.m., and in this context it is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to Crl.A. 895/2017 that appellant in the said appeal secured order on I.A. No.1 from this Court for enhancing the interim monthly maintainace claiming Rs.60,000/- p.m., and after hearing on the said application interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- ordered by this court to the appellants in the said appeal from 11.9.2017 to till further orders. With regard to this aspect it is further submitted that by suppressing material facts the present respondents has secured the said order from this court in Crl.A. No.895/2017 and the said aspect will be dealt with separately in the said separate appeal itself.
16. Considering the above circumstances in the light of rival contention of both the parties, so far as the observation 24 Crl.A. No.887/2017 made by the court below at para No.5 and 6 of the impugned order passed on I.A. No.1, it is crystal clear that no enquiry was conducted by the court below on I.A. No.1 before passing impugned order as per the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in 2011 (3) KCCR page 2221 in Krishna Murthy Nookula V/s. Y.Savitha. It is also pertinent to note that there were sufficient materials produced by appellant before the Court below after filing his statement of objection filed to the main petition and as well as to I.A. No.1, to substantiate his contention that as a dutiful father for respondent No.2 and 3 he had paid school fees, uniform fees by taking care of his family and as well as with regard to declaration of his monthly income and his assets, these material aspects were not at all considered by the court below while considering the prayer of the respondents on I.A. No.1. It is also pertinent to note that having regard to the view taken in the above case laws relied by the learned counsel for appellant in the light of present facts and circumstances of this case it is crystal clear that as there is no dispute with regard to the aspect that the respondent No.1 being the wife of the appellant was and is in 25 Crl.A. No.887/2017 Government service and drawing monthly salary of more than Rs.35,000/- at the time of filing above Crl. Misc. case and as well as I.A. No.1 before the court below and now by virtue of efflux of time as there is increase in the salary of the State Government Employees under these circumstances respondent No.1 who is not only educated woman but also she being an employee under the State Government, capable to maintain herself. When such being the situation, as the respondent No.1 continues in her Government service and drawing monthly salary of Rs.47,242/- as per the salary slip of respondent No.1 for the month of January 2018 and as per the salary slip for the month of May 2018 her gross salary is Rs.48,469/-which are produced before this court by the Advocate for respondents along with memo dt.3.7.2018. Whereas on the contrary as per the certified copy of salary calculation of the appellant plus deduction dt.18.5.2017 filed before the court below it clearly reveals that present appellant receiving only Rs.2,817.25ps after necessary deductions in his gross salary. It is also pertinent to note that considering the view taken in the above case law, in the given facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of 26 Crl.A. No.887/2017 considered view that respondent No.1 is not entitled for maintenance from appellant, since respondent No.1 is capable to maintain herself. It is also pertinent to note that so far as the impugned order under the revision challenged by the present appellant in this appeal is concerned so far as respondent No.2 and 3 who are being children of present appellant and respondent No.1, there is no dispute by the appellant so far as the maintainace of his two children are concerned in respect of interim maintainace awarded by the court below to respondent No.2 and 3. Hence, considering all these circumstances, this court is of considered view that the order under the appeal passed by the court below by awarding interim maintainace along with respondent No.2 and 3, totally monthly Rs.6,000/- is concerned, is not sustainable under the law so far as respondent No.1 is concerned and therefore to that extent from the above circumstances it can be held that appellant is able to substantiate and establish that the impugned order under the appeal pertains to the order under I.A. No.1 filed under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 dt.2.6.2017 is erroneous, illegal and not 27 Crl.A. No.887/2017 sustainable under the law so far as respondent No.1 is concerned and to that extent only the order under the appeal is held to be not maintainable under the law and therefore under these circumstances the interference by this court is necessary to set aside the order on I.A. NO.1 only to that extent. Hence, I answer Point No.1 partly in affirmative and partly in negative.
17. Point No.2: Having regard to my above observations and finding on point No.1 in partly affirmative and partly in negative, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant under Sec.29 of Domestic Violence Act is hereby partly allowed.
Consequently, the order passed by the trial Court in C.Misc. No.33/2016 dated 2.6.2017 awarding interim maintainace to respondent No.1, to the extent of Rs.2,000/- is concerned is hereby set aside, it is also made it clear that the said impugned order as against respondent No.2 and 3 awarding interim 28 Crl.A. No.887/2017 maintainace of Rs.2,000/- p.m., is hereby confirmed.
Send back the copy of the Judgment along with the LCR to the Court below forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of October, 2018) (S.A.CHIKKORDE) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.29 Crl.A. No.887/2017
16.10.2018 App-BRR Respondent-Adinarappa Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (vide separate order) ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant under Sec.29 of Domestic Violence Act is hereby partly allowed.
Consequently, the order passed by the trial Court in C.Misc.
No.33/2016 dated 2.6.2017 awarding
interim maintainace to respondent
No.1, to the extent of Rs.2,000/- is
concerned is hereby set aside, it is also
made it clear that the said impugned
order as against respondent No.2 and
3 awarding interim maintainace of
Rs.2,000/- p.m., is hereby confirmed.
Send back the copy of the
Judgment along with the LCR to the
Court below forthwith.
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
30 Crl.A. No.887/2017