Sri Shivakumar S E vs Smt Mangalamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 6025 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.73/2021

BETWEEN:

SRI SHIVAKUMAR S.E.,
S/O LATE EREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O NO.868, 2ND FLOOR,
4TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN ROAD,
GOKULA 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560054.                      ... PETITIONER

         (BY SRI SUMANTH L. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. MANGALAMMA
W/O SRI LATE EREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/O SHIVAJYOTHI PANA BEEDI,
NEHARU NAGARA,
BELUR TOWN, BELUR                          ... RESPONDENT

           (BY SRI SANJAYA KUMAR K.N., ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED       UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING       TO SET
ASIDE THE SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2020     PASSED
BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS          COURT,
HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.56/2020 AND ETC.

    THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 2



                           ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner. This Court earlier directed

the petitioner to pay the balance amount and counsel for he

petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not able to pay the

balance amount and henceforth, he will pay the same.

2. The present petition is filed challenging the order

passed by the Trial Court granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/-

p.m. in favour of the mother and the order is against the son

who is an employee of BMTC bus at Bengaluru. The order was

passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court taking note

of the avocation of the petitioner, in paragraph 15 made an

observation that the salary of the petitioner was Rs.30,000/-

p.m and out of that amount, Rs.5,000/- p.m. was awarded in

favour of his mother from the date of the petition. Being

aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an appeal was

preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Court. The

Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of material available on

record, in paragraphs 15 and 16, considering the provisions

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and also taken note of the age of

the mother and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently contend that henceforth, the petitioner will

pay the amount but on perusal of the records, it discloses that

the petition was filed in the year 2017 and maintenance was not

paid till date and the Trial Court also after considering both the

oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the petition and

ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the

respondent herein. It is not in dispute that this petitioner is

working as driver of BMTC bus. The Trial Court also while

awarding the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. taken note of the

documents produced before the Court. For having taken note of

the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate

Court and also considering the cost of living in the present

situation, the fact that his mother is staying in the village in a

rented house, the payment of Rs.5,000/- p.m. in favour of the

mother out of his salary income is not exorbitant as contended

by the petitioner and the said order is not required any

interference of this Court. Hence, I do not find any merit in the

petition to admit the same. The maintenance awarded by the

Trial Court is also reasonable considering the employment of the

petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

4. 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