Sri S Sadananda vs Smt H C Savithramma
2021 Latest Caselaw 6345 Kant

                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                    BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.663/2020

BETWEEN:

SRI.S.SADANANDA,
S/O S.B.SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.55, DEVI NAGAR,
OOTY ROAD, NANJANGUD TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 118.
                                    ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SUHAS GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI.MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT.H.C.SAVITHRAMMA,
W/O S.SADANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ANGANWADI WORKER,
R/AT 7TH CROSS, R.P.ROAD,
NANJANGUD TOWN,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 118.
                                    ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.SOHANI HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 23.01.2020
IN CRL.A.NO.176/2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
                              2

SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 24.05.2019 IN C.MISC.NO.161/2011
PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT NANJANGUD.


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                        ORDER

The husband is the revision petitioner, who has

suffered an order in C. Misc. NO.161/2011 and ordered to

pay monthly maintenance in a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to

the respondent - wife, which was confirmed in Crl.A.

No.176/2019.

2. Brief facts leading to the case of prosecution as

is under:

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for

the sake of convenience.

The wife filed the petition under the provisions of

Sections 9(b) and 37(2)(c ) of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short)

contending that she has been thrown out of the dwelling

house and she has to have a separate household

established. The petition also contended that necessary

application was filed to the Protection Officer and the

Protection Officer after due enquiry, has filed necessary

report before the Police. The trial Magistrate thereafter

issued summons to the husband and he appeared before

the Court and filed objections.

3. The trial Magistrate conducted the trial

wherein, the wife got examined herself as PW.1 and one

Rameeja as PW.2 and Nagaraju, who performed her

marriage with respondent - husband as PW.3 and has

relied on six documentary evidences, which were exhibited

and marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The respondent - husband

also got examined himself as RW.1 and one more witness

as RW.2 and has relied on 20 documentary evidences,

which were exhibited and marked as Exs.R1 to R20.

4. Learned trial Magistrate thereafter heard the

parties in detail and considered the oral and documentary

evidences on record in proper perspective and allowed the

petition of the wife and has ordered to pay a sum of

Rs.3,000/- p.m., as maintenance including the payment of

rent to the petitioner from the date of the petition.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the

respondent - husband has preferred an appeal before the

II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.A.

No.176/2019.

6. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records and hearing the parties in detail,

concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Magistrate

on all issues and dismissed the appeal filed by the

husband. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband is

before this Court in revision petition.

7. Sri. Suhas Gowda, learned counsel for Sri.

Muniyappa, learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner vehemently contended that both the Courts

have wrongly recorded the findings that there existed a

relationship of the husband and wife between the parties

and wrongly passed an order resulting in miscarriage of

justice.

8. In the revision petition following grounds are

raised:

• "The impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below in coming to the conclusion that the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent is established and further directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance to the Respondent is unsustainable in law, facts and circumstances and the same is liable to be set aside.

• Both the Courts below have failed to hold that the Respondent has made use of the Petitioner's innocence by taking a hand loan and just to avoid repayment of the same she has filed a false case contending that the Petitioner is her husband. The conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below with regard to the domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent and further directing the Petitioner to pay the maintenance to the Respondent is unsustainable in law.

• Both the Courts below have failed to see that the petitioner and the respondent are not husband and wife and there is no document to prove that they are husband and wife and only based on the alleged relationship the Courts have come to a wrong conclusion and passed the order to the detriment of the petitioner.

• The Courts below further failed to see that the Petitioner has already married and living with his family consisting of his wife and children. The Respondent has filed false complaint in order to make unlawful gains.

• The Courts below have failed to notice that the evidence led by the Respondent with respect to the photo showing her along with the petitioner is nothing but a created one. Further the Courts erred in not going through the Report dated 04.01.2016 issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory which clearly shows that the said photo produced at Ex.P2 in Crl.Misc. No.161/2011 is unnatural, it is not original photograph but a composite photograph of editing images prepared by photo editing software.

• The Courts below erred in not recording a finding that the Forensic Science Laboratory Report is an authenticated one and that the Respondent has produced a created document just to harass the Petitioner and to make wrongful gain thereof. This shows that the Respondent has not approached the Court with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief much less the reliefs granted by the Courts below.

• The Petitioner prays that he may be permitted to produce additional documents and additional grounds if any, at the time of argument.

• Viewing from any sight of angle, the impugned judgment by both the Courts below are perverse, not speaking, without appreciation of evidence led in and are liable to be set aside.

• The Criminal Revision Petition is filed in time."

Reiterating the above grounds in the revision petition,

sought for allowing the revision petition.

9. Per contra, Smt. Sohani Holla, learned counsel

representing the wife supported the impugned judgments.

She also pointed out that the false plea taken by the

husband has been negated by both the Courts and rightly

came to the conclusion that the husband without reasons

deserted the wife and therefore, she is entitled for monthly

maintenance in a sum of Rs.3,000/- and sought for

dismissal of the revision petition.

10. This Court carefully perused the materials on

record.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner during the course of arguments, produced the

certified copy of the certificate issued by the experts

wherein the photographs produced by the wife has been

doubted about its veracity. The said report is of the year

2016, however, the husband has not taken any action

against the wife for the alleged misuse.

12. Further, the revision petitioner did not choose

to call the expert before the Court for examination to

establish the report. After all, the report of the expert is in

the nature of opinion evidence as is contemplated under

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If at all, if

the revision petitioner is aggrieved about the conduct of

his wife, necessarily he would have taken some action

against his wife. Non-taking any action against his wife

itself exposes the hollowness in the claim of the revision

petition. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate

Court have rightly appreciated the oral and documentary

evidences placed on record and has come to the conclusion

that a case is made out by the wife to seek monthly

maintenance in a sum of Rs.3,000/-. In fact, in the

absence of any petition filed by the wife seeking

enhancement of the compensation, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the amount awarded by the trial

Magistrate needs no interference. Accordingly, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the

revision petition holds merits and accordingly, the

following:

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Petition sans merits and is

hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VBS