Karnataka High Court
N.Y.Gundurao vs Smt.Annapurna And Anr on 12 July, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
WRIT PETITION NOS.207175-176/2017
BETWEEN:
N.Y.Gundurao S/o Yellappa,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ : Police Sub Inspector,
Gurumitkal P.S
Taluk and District Yadgiri.
... Petitioner
(By Sri J.S.Kulkarni, Advocate for
Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt.Annapurna W/o N.Y.Gundurao,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ : Computer Engineer,
R/o C/o R.Eranna, Near Noorani Masjid,
Mehaboob Colony, Sindhanur Taluk,
Dist : Raichur.
2. Nehal S/o N.Y.Gundurao
Aged about 3 years, Minor
under care and custody of
Smt.Annapurna W/o N.Y.Gundurao
R/o C/o R.Eranna, Near Noorani Masjid,
Mehaboob Colony, Sindhanur Taluk,
2
Dist : Raichur.
... Respondents
(By Sri Shivakumar Malipatil, Advocate for R1;
R2 minor represented by R1)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C
praying to quash the order dated 30.06.2016 passed in
Criminal Revision No.25/2015 on the file of the Prl. District
and Sessions Judge, Raichur, confirming the order dated
19.03.2015 passed on I.A.No.I in Criminal Misc.
No.313/2015 on the file of the Prl. JMFC, Sindhanur.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C') so as to quash the order dated 30.06.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No.25/2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur confirming the order dated 19.03.2015 passed on I.A.No.I in Criminal Mise.No.313/2015 on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindhanur.
3
2. The facts leading to the case are that the respondents herein has filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance against the present petitioner. Respondent No.1 has also filed IA under Section 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C seeking interim maintenance and considering the documentary evidences placed before the Court, the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.2 per month until further orders, vide his order dated 19.03.2015. The order of interim maintenance is being challenged before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur in Criminal Revision Petition No.25/2015 and the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 30.06.2016, dismissed the petition by confirming the order passed by the Principal JMFC, Sindhanur in Criminal Misc. No.313/2015 dated 19.03.2015 granting exparte 4 interim maintenance. But, however, he remanded the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to dispose of I.A.No.I after giving opportunity to the present petitioner within sixty days from the date of appearance of respondent/revision petitioner before the learned Magistrate. This order is being challenged in this petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner herein as the respondents herein have not shown any intention to reside with petitioner.
5. It is evident that it is legal and moral obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife and son. Further, the learned Magistrate has only passed exparte interim order on I.A.No.I and that was subject to the decision of final order on I.A.No.I. But, after 5 granting exparte interim maintenance the same was challenged before the learned Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge rejected the petition by confirming the exparte order of interim maintenance by directing the learned Magistrate to dispose of I.A.No.I after giving opportunity to respondent/ revision petitioner herein. No illegality is found and considering the relationship between the parties, it is the legal and moral obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife and minor son. If wife is capable of maintaining herself, petitioner could produce the relevant documents before the learned Magistrate and seek the modification or cancellation of the exparte order of interim maintenance. There was no need for petitioner to approach either the learned Sessions Judge or the High Court. However, the learned Sessions Judge has directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of I.A.No.I filed for interim maintenance 6 within sixty days. The petitioner instead of utilizing the said opportunity again approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The orders of learned Sessions Judge or learned Magistrate do not suffer from any illegality and both the courts below have appreciated the evidence and considering the facts and circumstances, passed a reasonable order. Now the remedy for the petitioner herein is to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate orders on I.A.No.I itself. Hence, the petition is devoid of any merits and needs to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn