Karnataka High Court
Shekhar Fakirappa Uppar vs Smt.Renuka W/O Shekhar Uppar on 25 August, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
-1-
CRL.P No. 101458 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101458 OF 2019 (482-)
BETWEEN:
SHEKHAR FAKIRAPPA UPPAR
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MURKIBHAVI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.RENUKA W/O SHEKHAR UPPAR
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MURKIBHAVI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
NOW HANAMAGERI ONI,
SAUNDATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI.
2. KUMARI BALAMMA @ BHAVANA SHEKHAR UPPAR
ANNAPURNA AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY M/G
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA
SMT.RENUKA W/O SHEKHAR UPPAR,
CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
DHARWAD.
R/O: MURKIBHAVI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1- NOTICE SERVED; R2-MINOR R/BY R1)
-2-
CRL.P No. 101458 of 2019
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 PASSED
BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, SAUNDATTI IN
CRL.MISC.NO.124/2007 THEREBY DIRECTING THE PETITIONER
TO PAY A SUM OF RS.1,000/- PER MONTH TO THE EACH OF
THE RESPONDENTS FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, AS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
For the sake of convenience, parties are referred by their
rank before the Trial Court.
2. Being aggrieved by the correction dated
12.12.2017, made by the trial Court to the final order dated
21.08.2022, in CRL. Misc. No.124/2007, on the file of
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti, thereby making the
said order to come into effect from the date of petition,
petitioner before this Court, who is respondent before the trial
Court, has filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C).
3. It is the case of the respondent that petitioners filed
Crl.Misc.No.124/2007, claiming maintenance from the
CRL.P No. 101458 of 2019
respondent. However, in the objection statement respondent
denied the relationship between him and the petitioners and
consequently all other allegations. In fact, he has claimed that
he is married to the daughter of his maternal uncle. He has also
contended that in view of his marriage to the daughter of his
maternal uncle, the alleged marriage between him and
petitioner No.1 is null and void and that he has filed OS
No.172/2010 to declare his marriage with petitioner No.1 as
null and void.
4. After holding detailed enquiry, vide the final order
dated 21.08.2017, the trial Court has partly allowed the
petition granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to
the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. But, in the operative portion the
date from which the maintenance is to be paid is not specified.
However, by order dated 12.12.2017, the learned Magistrate
has corrected the operative portion of the order by inserting the
words "from the date of petition". This portion of the final order
i.e., correction made on 12.12.2017, is challenged in this
petition.
CRL.P No. 101458 of 2019
5. Though duly served, the petitioners who are
respondents before this Court have remained absent.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent argued and
submitted that the respondents' counsel was not intimated
about the application being moved and that the correction is
made behind the back of the respondent. He would further
submit that as per Section 362 of Cr.P.C., no Court, when it has
signed it's judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall
alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or
arithmetic error and when such being the case, the trial Court
erred in inserting the words "from the date of petition", that
too, behind the back of respondent and therefore, it is liable to
be set aside. He would further submit that it is not a clerical or
arithmetic error required correction.
8. To show that the order in question is passed without
notice to the respondent, the learned counsel has drawn the
attention of this Court to the board application dated
09.11.2017, filed by the advocate for petitioners and the
endorsement made by him on the said application, which states
CRL.P No. 101458 of 2019
that copy of the said application is not served on the learned
counsel for the respondent as he is not available in the Court.
If the learned counsel for respondent was not available in the
Court premises, it was not a justification for petitioners' counsel
not to serve the copy and the trial Court ought not to have
entertained the application. It should have insisted upon
petitioners' counsel to serve a copy and thereby provide
opportunity to the respondent's counsel to have his say as to
whether any correction is required and if so whether it is only a
clerical or arithmetical mistake or such correction is going to
affect the right of the respondent substantially.
9. By not providing opportunity to the respondent, the
trial Court has erred. In the result the portion of the order
dated 12.12.2017, correcting the final order dated 21.08.2017,
by making the said order to come into effect from the date of
petition, is liable to be set aside. If at all the petitioners are
aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2017, in not specifying that
they are entitled for maintenance from the date of petition,
they are at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate
forum.
10. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
CRL.P No. 101458 of 2019
ORDER
The petition is allowed in part.
Order dated 12.12.2017, correcting the final
order dated 21.08.2017, by making the said order to
come into effect from the date of petition is set
aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN/PJ
