Sri K C Ramesh vs Smt Anusha M @ Sonali
2022 Latest Caselaw 6019 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.19/2020

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI K.C.RAMESH
       S/O LATE CHANNAHANUMAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

2.     SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
       W/O LATE CHANNAHANUMAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

3.     SMT. BHAGYA
       D/O CHANNAHANUMAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

4.     SMT. GEETHA
       D/O CHANNAHANUMAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

       ALL ARE RESIDING AT
       KEMPANNAHALLI
       MAYAGANAHALLI POST
       KASABA HOBLI
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-560060.     ... PETITIONERS


            (BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. ANUSHA M @ SONALI
W/O K.C. RAMESH
                                  2



AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/A NO.125, SAI JYOTHI BUILDING
3RD CROSS, VIDYA PEETA ROAD
KOTE BEEDI, KENGERI
BENGALURU-560060.                                  ... RESPONDENT


              (BY SRI H.T.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE)



     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 RW 401 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT      PASSED    IN    CRL.MISC.NO.174/2016          DATED
10.11.2017 ON THE FILE OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC, COURT-II, BENGALURU AND ETC.


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:



                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The respondent before the Trial Court by filing a

petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 sought for an order to grant

maintenance of Rs.30,000/- p.m., medical expenses of

Rs.2,50,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.50,000/- and

compensation of Rs.50 lakh.

3. It is the case of the respondent that her marriage

was solemnized on 04.06.2015 as per the Hindu rituals and

customs and ornaments were also given and the marriage was

performed in a grand scale by spending huge amount of Rs.20

lakh obtaining loan from Hanumanthanagar Co-operative bank

and also from the relatives and friends and out of the money

saved by her parents. Inspite of the same also, the petitioners

were subjected the respondent for both mental and physical

cruelty and the respondent stayed in her matrimonial home

hardly about 45 days. It is also the case of the respondent that

she became pregnant and gave birth to a premature girl child

and petitioners have not spent any amount in this regard. The

respondent stated that on 13.09.2016, the first petitioner came

consuming an alcohol and subjected her for physical and mental

cruelty demanding an additional dowry and respondent could not

able to lodge the complaint on that day due to cauvery issue and

again the petitioners have demanded for an amount of Rs.10

lakh to construct a new house at Bidadi in an agricultural land.

The first petitioner always used to say that if he would married

some other girl, he could have got half kg gold, one site at

Magadi measuring 60 x 40 feet and he could have get marriage

in a grand manner and hence, the respondent prayed for

maintenance.

4. Per contra, the petitioners herein also filed statement

of objections denying all the allegation made in the petition.

5. The respondent/complainant before the Trial Court in

order to prove her case, examined herself as PW1 and also

examined one more witness as PW2 and got marked the

documents at Ex.P1 to P11. On the other hand, the first

petitioner/respondent No.1 examined himself as RW1 and also

got examined one more witness as RW2 and not produced any

documents to prove his contention before the Trial Court. The

Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary

evidence, ordered to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in

favour of respondent and Rs.5,000/- in favour of the child and

also directed the first petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakh

towards the medical expenses and compensation of Rs.10 lakh.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal

was preferred in Crl.A.No.1729/2017 and the Appellate Court

also on re-appreciation of both the oral and documentary

evidence, confirmed the order of the Trial Court and hence, the

present revision petition is filed before the Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would vehemently contend that without any basis, the monthly

maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10 lakh

towards compensation was awarded by the Trial Court.

Admittedly, the first petitioner is an agriculturist and not getting

any regular income and the crop is also depending upon the rain

and in the absence of any employment, it is difficult to comply

with the order of the Trial Court and even though the evidence

was given by PW1 that the first petitioner was doing real estate

business, no document is placed with this regard. Hence, the

Trial Court has committed an error in granting the monthly

maintenance of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and also Rs.10 lakh

towards compensation and also the Appellate Court also did not

consider the material available on record. The counsel also

submits that 13B petition also filed and the respondent herein

also agreed to give consent accepting the property and now

demanding some other property and hence, it requires

interference of this Court.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/complainant would vehemently contend that both

the Courts have taken note of the material available on record

and concurrent finding was given and the same is also based on

the material and the first petitioner herein in the cross-

examination admitted in respect of the documents at Ex.P10 -

Mutation and RTC extracts which have been produced and the

said properties are also worth of more than lakhs and the said

land is also situated within Ramanagara district. Having

considered all these aspects, the Trial Court awarded the

monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- and

compensation of Rs.10 lakh which are very meager and with the

said amount of Rs.15,000/-, it is very difficult to lead the life by

paying rent as well as provide education to the child and hence,

it does not requires any interference with the order of the Trial

Court as well as the Appellate Court by this Court.

8. In reply to the arguments of the counsel for the

respondent, the counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

Trial Court directed to meet the education expenses from the

date of the admission to the school till she attaines the age of

majority.

9. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of the documents on record, the

points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:

(1) Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court

have committed an error in granting the monthly

maintenance of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- to the

respondent and also to the child respectively and

also directing to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakh

towards the medical expenses and also directing

to meet the educational expenses till the age of

majority?

(2) Whether both the Courts have committed an error

directing the first petitioner to pay compensation

of Rs.10 lakh?

   (3)     What order?




Point Nos.1 to 3:

10. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of the material available on

record, it is not in dispute that marriage was solemnized in the

year 2015 and the material discloses that only for a short period,

both have lived together. It is also not in dispute that the

premature child was born and child was also kept in the

incubator. The medical bills are also produced before the Trial

Court in this regard which are marked at Ex.P6. The respondent

also relied upon the letter issued by the Hanumanthanagar

Cooperative bank at Ex.P8 to substantiate with regard to the

loan which was taken at the time of her marriage. The

respondent also relied upon Ex.P10-mutation and RTC extracts

and also produced photographs of the house at Ex.P11. The

petitioners herein not disputed the documents at Ex.P10 and P11

and Ex.P11 discloses with regard to the recent construction of

the house. But the first petitioner's claims is that his maternal

uncle gave the money for construction of the house and in order

to substantiate the same, no material was placed before the Trial

Court.

11. Having considered the admission given by the first

petitioner with regard to the lands which they are owning, he

admits in the cross-examination in respect of different survey

numbers particularly the said survey numbers also mentioned

during the course of the cross-examination. The Trial Court also

while granting maintenance taken note of the photographs of the

house, as well as in the cross-examination admitted that she

was there about 40 to 45 days. It is also not in dispute that she

gave birth to the child. It is also observed in paragraph 24 that

though he had stated that the alleged house was constructed by

the brother of respondent No.2 but he has expressed that what

was the share and what was the amount and how much the cost

paid for construction of the house. On entire reading of evidence

of RW2, it is clear that on the advice of respondent No.1 and the

information given by the respondent No.1, RW2 deposed and he

do not have any personal knowledge about the family affairs of

the petitioners.

12. Having considered the material on record, the Trial

Court in paragraph 25 came to the conclusion that respondent

No.1 has deserted the petitioner and her child without any cause

and came to the conclusion that the very attitude of the first

respondent shows that which is nothing but domestic violence.

The order of the Trial Court has been challenged before the

Appellate Court and the Appellate Court also on re-appreciation

of both the oral and documentary evidence on record in

paragraphs 16 and 17 taken note of evidence of PW1 and the

answer elicited from the mouth of PW1. No doubt, PW1 also

admitted in the cross-examination that no documents are

produced with regard to the avocation of the first petitioner

herein and no document is substantiated with regard to business

is concerned. Trial Court taken note of Ex.P10 and P11 which are

also not denied by the petitioners and also taken note of

evidence of RW2 and discussed in paragraph 18 and considering

the materials available on record at paragraph 19 came to the

conclusion that the first petitioner is having source of income

and hence, having considered the capacity and particularly

taking note of the Ex.P11 in which house the petitioners are

residing, dismissed the appeal. The main contention of the

petitioners before this Court is that the respondent lived hardly

about 40 to 45 days but the fact is that she is the wife of first

petitioner is also not in dispute and I have already pointed out

that premature child was born is also not in dispute and the child

was saved by keeping in the incubator and bills are also

produced at Ex.P6 for having spent the amount. Hence, I do not

find any error in awarding the amount of Rs.2 lakh against the

medical expenses.

13. Now coming to the aspect of awarding monthly

maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/-. Now the child is

aged about 7 years and taken note of the photographs at Ex.P11

wherein the first petitioner is residing. The respondent herein

has to live with the child and out of the amount of Rs.15,000/-,

she has to meet the day-to-day expenses hence, awarding

monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- to the

respondent and the child respectively is not exorbitant as

contended by the petitioners' counsel. It is the duty of the first

petitioner to take care of his wife and the child and the said

amount is also not exorbitant taking note of the present cost of

living.

14. Now coming to the other contention that school

expenses are also met during the pendency of the appeal and

there was a direction to meet the educational expenses towards

the minor child and now the child is admitted to the school and

hence, passing an order to meet the educational expenses is not

an erroneous order and admittedly, the respondent is not having

any avocation and not an earning member and hence, I do not

find any error directing the first petitioner to meet the education

expenses.

15. Now coming to the aspect of awarding an amount of

Rs.10 lakh as compensation since the respondent also sought for

the compensation of Rs.50 lakh for her mental, physical

emotional abuse and also economical abuse, mental agony and

depression undergone due to the harassment and taking note of

the admission elicited from the mouth of the petitioners that

they are having landed property in Ramanagar district and also

house is constructed by spending huge money and the document

at Ex.P11-photographs also discloses the same and the same is

admitted by the petitioners but claims that the amount was

spent by their maternal uncle. I have also pointed out that in

order to substantiate the same, no document was placed before

the Trial Court. When such being the factual aspects, the Court

has to take note of the status of the parties while granting the

maintenance as well as awarding compensation. Both the Courts

have taken note of the evidence available before the Court

particularly, the documents at Ex.P10 and P11, worth of the

property and the property is also situated in Ramanagar district.

Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court

awarding compensation of Rs.10 lakh and there are no grounds

to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court. This Court can exercise the revisional

jurisdiction only when both the Courts have not applied their

mind and not considered the cogent evidence available on record

and if any finding is given against the records, then only this

Court can invoke the revisional jurisdiction and the scope of the

revision is very limited and I have already pointed out that the

concurrent finding is given by both the Courts and in the

absence of any material to show that the perverse finding is

given while appreciating the material on record, this Court can

exercise the revisional jurisdiction. In the case on hand, I do not

find any grounds to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence,

points No.1 to 3 are answered as negative.

16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A, if any, does

not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN