Bangalore District Court
Sri. Manjunath vs Smt.Sheelavathi V on 12 June, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 57)
: Present :
Sri. N.Sunil Kumar Singh, B.Com.,LL.B.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 12 th Day of June, 2020.
Crl. Appeal No.1761/2018
APPELLANT : Sri. Manjunath
S/o Rangaiah,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at Arepalya, Narasandra Post,
Kudur Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
Office at: KSRTC Depot
Deepanjalinagar,Bengaluru Central
Division, 5th Depot Badge No.10061,
Bangalore.
(By Smt.Jayalakshmi K.B.,
Advocate)
- Vs -
RESPONDENT : Smt.Sheelavathi V.
W/o Manjunath,
Aged about 31 years,
Sri.Sai Manjunatha Accommodation,
No.320, 59th Cross,
3rd Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560010.
(By Sri.K.C.N., Advocate)
: J UD GME N T :
This is an appeal under Section 29 of Protection of
women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 filed by the
Crl.A.No.1761/2018
2
appellant (1st respondent before trial Court) against the
Order in Crl.Misc.No.121/2017 on the file of MMTC-IV,
Bangalore dated: 15.12.2017.
2. The parties shall be addressed as per the
rankings given before the trial Court for the sake of
convenience.
3. The facts in brief of the petitioner's case before
the trial court is that, appellant and respondent are
husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on
15.04.2007 at Anjaneya Kalyana Mantapa, Hullenahalli,
Guloor Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District as per the
customs prevailing in their community. After the
marriage respondent herein living with the appellant in
his matrimonial house Byadarahalli, Bangalore Rural
District and they also lived at Nelamangala and due to
their wedlock they got two sons by name Chirag and
Srinithin aged about 10 years and 8 years respectively.
After the marriage appellant looked after the respondent
properly and he is working in KSRTC and due to some
matrimonial disputes between appellant and respondent
after 11 years of their marriage the respondent started
living separately and she has filed petition before MMTC-
IV Court, Bangalore in Crl.Misc.No.121/2017 against the
appellant herein under Sec.12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and claimed
Crl.A.No.1761/2018
3
maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. from appellant herein
and also for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for having
caused mental agony by the appellant to the respondent
and also claimed legal expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. After filing of such petition the trial court
passed an order on 15.12.2017 on I.A.No.I and allowed
maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. from the date of petition
till disposal of I.A.No.I under Sec.23 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. The said order
was passed exparte and appellant herein is not liable to
pay such interim maintenance to the respondent herein
and the trial court has not provided opportunity to the
appellant herein to contest the matter on I.A.No.I.
Aggrieved by the said order of the trial court granting
interim maintenance to the respondent herein in
Crl.Misc.No.121/2017 dated:15.12.2017, the present
appeal is preferred by the respondent on the following
grounds.
5. In the grounds of appeal appellant herein has
contended that, the Learned Magistrate not provided an
opportunity to contest the matter on I.A.No.I and passed
interim order and granted interim maintenance to the
respondent which is not sustainable. The Learned
Magistrate has not considered the income of the
appellant while passing such impugned order. Even
Crl.A.No.1761/2018
4
though the respondent herein not produced any such
documents with regard to the proof of income the interim
maintenance awarded is not sustainable and liable to be
set aside. The Learned Magistrate not appreciated the
documents on record and allowed maintenance of
Rs.6,000/- p.m. payable by appellant herein to the
respondent without appreciating the ingredients of
Sec.22 of the Act. The Learned Magistrate not
considered and appreciated the objections statement filed
by the appellant while awarding such maintenance.
Without considering the objections of the appellant
herein the learned Magistrate issued notice of recovery in
Crl.Misc.No.61/2018 as per the order passed on I.A.No.I
which is liable to be set aside. Hence it is prayed to allow
the appeal and prayed to set aside order of interim
maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate in
Crl.Misc.No.121/2017 dated: 15.12.2017 and prayed to
allow the appeal.
6. After contesting the matter, the respondent
herein who was the petitioner before trial court not filed
any objections, but heard arguments of learned counsel
for appellant and perused the written arguments
submitted on behalf of the respondent and perused the
LCR .
Crl.A.No.1761/2018
5
7. The following points arises for my
consideration;
1. Whether the trial Court has rightly
allowed I.A.No.I and passed interim
order of maintenance in
Crl.Misc.No.121/2017?
2. Whether the orders passed by the
trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.121/2017
on I.A.No.I is to be interfered by
this Court?
3. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No1: In the Affirmative
Point No 2: In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per the final orders for
the following:
:REASONS:
9. POINT NO 1 AND 2: Since these two points
are interconnected to each other. They have been taken
together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of the
facts and findings to be given there under.
10. The facts in brief of the petitioner's case
before the trial court is that, appellant and respondent
are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized
on 15.04.2007 at Anjaneya Kalyana Mantapa,
Hullenahalli, Guloor Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District as
per the customs prevailing in their community. After the
Crl.A.No.1761/2018
6
marriage respondent herein living with the appellant in
his matrimonial house Byadarahalli, Bangalore Rural
District and they also lived at Nelamangala and due to
their wedlock they got two sons by name Chirag and
Srinithin aged about 10 years and 8 years respectively.
After the marriage appellant looked after the respondent
properly and he is working in KSRTC and due to some
matrimonial disputes between appellant and respondent
after 11 years of their marriage the respondent started
living separately and she has filed petition before MMTC-
IV Court, Bangalore in Crl.Misc.No.121/2017 against the
appellant herein under Sec.12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and claimed
maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. from appellant herein
and also for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for having
caused mental agony by the appellant to the respondent
and also claimed legal expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-.
10. After filing of such petition the trial court
passed an order on 15.12.2017 on I.A.No.I and allowed
interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. from the date of
petition till disposal of I.A.No.I under Sec.23 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. The said
order was passed exparte and appellant herein is not
liable to pay such interim maintenance to the respondent
herein and the trial court has not provided opportunity to
Crl.A.No.1761/2018
7
the appellant herein to contest the matter on I.A.No.I.
Aggrieved by the said order of the trial court granting
interim maintenance to the respondent herein in
Crl.Misc.No.121/2017 dated:15.12.2017.
11. It is submitted in grounds of appeal by learned
counsel for appellant herein that, the Learned Magistrate
not provided an opportunity to contest the matter on
I.A.No.I and passed interim order and granted interim
maintenance to the respondent which is not sustainable.
The Learned Magistrate has not considered the income of
the appellant while passing such impugned order. Even
though the respondent herein not produced any such
document with regard to the proof of income the interim
maintenance awarded is not sustainable and liable to be
set aside. The Learned Magistrate not appreciated the
documents on record and passed Rs.6,000/- p.m.
payable by appellant herein to the respondent is without
appreciating the ingredients of Sec.22 of the Act. The
Learned Magistrate not considered and appreciated the
objections statement filed by the appellant while
awarding such maintenance. Without considering the
objections of the appellant herein the learned Magistrate
issued notice of recovery in Crl.Misc.No.61/2018 as per
the order passed on I.A.No.I which is liable to be set
aside. Hence it is prayed to allow the appeal and prayed
Crl.A.No.1761/2018
8
to set aside order of interim maintenance granted by the
learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.121/2017
dated:15.12.2017.
12. It is argued by learned counsel for appellant
herein that, the trial court has not considered the income
of the appellant herein before passing such interim order
of maintenance which is not sustainable. It is also
submitted that, appellant herein is taking care of his two
children and he has no sufficient means to maintain
himself and his two children. But without considering
the objections statement filed by him the interim order is
passed for payment of Rs.6,000/- p.m. to the respondent
herein from the date of petition till disposal of I.A.No.I
which has to be set aside. But learned counsel for
respondent herein submitted in his written arguments
that, respondent herein is deserted by the appellant and
she has no means to maintain herself. Hence the interim
maintenance granted by the trial court is not sufficient
and it has to be enhanced.
13. On going through the records of trial court
admittedly both the appellant and respondent have led
their evidence and marked certain documents on their
behalf. As per the evidence of both the sides admittedly
marriage between appellant and respondent is still
subsisting and the salary slips of the appellant herein
Crl.A.No.1761/2018
9
discloses that, he is drawing salary of Rs.45,000/- p.m.
and considering the documents available on record the
trial court has awarded some interim maintenance to the
respondent herein which cannot be considered as
arbitrary. The allegations made against each other in the
said petition is merits of the case which has to be decided
after concluding of evidence of both the sides and while
disposing of the case on merits before the trial court.
14. On going through the orders passed by the
trial court on 15.12.2017 it is the interim order passed
by awarding suitable interim maintenance from the date
of petition till disposal of I.A.No.I and admittedly I.A.No.I
is not yet disposed off on merits before the trial court.
The objections filed by the appellant herein before the
trial court on I.A.No.I can be considered by the trial court
and after hearing both the sides the trial court can
dispose off I.A.No.I on merits. Considering all the
materials and documents available on record the trial
court has passed an interim order which cannot be
considered as arbitrary and admittedly the appellant
herein has complied the said order and paid interim
maintenance for some time as per the admissions of
respondent herein in her objections. Hence there is no
merits in the present appeal and when admittedly the
marriage between appellant and respondent is subsisting
Crl.A.No.1761/2018
10
as observed by the trial court the appellant being the
husband of respondent herein is bound to maintain the
respondent herein and appeal is deserves to be rejected
and there is no grounds to interfere in the orders passed
by the trial court in awarding interim maintenance to the
respondent herein. Accordingly, I hold Point No.1 as
Affirmative and Point No.2 as Negative.
15. Point No.3: In view of my findings in point
No.1 and 2 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby dismissed.
The Order of trial court on I.A.No.I in Crl.Misc.No.121/2017 dated:15.12.2017 passed by MMTC-IV, Bengaluru is hereby confirmed.
Send back the LCR along with copy of this Judgment to the trial court forthwith.
(Typed to my online dictation by Stenographer, revised by me and thereafter pronounced in the Open Court on this the 12 th Day of June, 2020) (N.Sunil Kumar Singh) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.A.No.1761/2018 11 Crl.A.No.1761/2018 12 Order pronounced in open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby dismissed.
The Order of trial court on I.A.No.I in Crl.Misc.No.121/2017 dated:15.12.2017 passed by MMTC-IV, Bengaluru is hereby confirmed.
Send back the LCR along with copy of this Judgment to the trial court forthwith.
LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.A.No.1761/2018 13