Smt Sharadamma N vs Sri Manjunatha B S
2022 Latest Caselaw 512 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 512 Kant
Judgement Date : 12 January, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Smt Sharadamma N vs Sri Manjunatha B S on 12 January, 2022

Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 12 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.22 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Smt. Sharad amma N.,
W/o Manjunatha B.S.,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at Nayanahalli Villag e,
Patrenahalli Post,
Chikkab allapur Taluk & District-562101.
                                             ...Petitioner
(By Smt. Kusum Rang anath, Advocate)

AND:

Sri Manjunatha B.S.,
S/o Samp angi Ramaiah,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at Byyapp anahalli Villag e,
Yelagere Post, Kasab a Hobli,
Chikkab allapur Taluk & District-562101.
                                           ...Respondent
(By Sri S.N.Aswathnarayan, Advocate)

      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. p raying to set
aside     the   judgment     d ated   25.09.2020       in
Crl.A.No.78/2019 on the file of the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chikkab allap ura and etc.

     This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
admission through video conferencing this d ay, the
Court mad e the following:
                                  :: 2 ::


                                ORDER

This revision petition has been filed

challenging the order dated 25.9.2020 passed by

the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chikkaballapura, in Criminal Appeal No. 78/2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the respondent.

3. In a report made by the Protection Officer,

the reliefs under Sections 19 to 22 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

('D.V.Act' for short) were sought. Then the

petitioner made an application under Section 23 of

the D.V.Act for interim order of maintenance of

Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner has stated

that the respondent lived with her for a certain

period of time and promising to marry her,

developed sexual relationship with her and this

resulted in her giving birth to a male child. The

respondent has denied his relationship with her.

:: 3 ::

But, the learned Magistrate allowed the application

of the petitioner and passed an interim order

directing the respondent to pay maintenance of

Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner and

Rs.500/- per month to the child. Aggrieved by this

interim order passed by the Magistrate, the

respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions

Court, Chikkaballapura. By the impugned order,

the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of

the Magistrate and therefore this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the paternity of the child is not disputable

and in this view it is quite obvious that the

petitioner and the respondent lived together. In

this view, the petitioner would be entitled to claim

maintenance and this was the reason for the

Magistrate to allow her application for interim

maintenance. She argues that the Sessions Court

while passing the impugned order has made :: 4 ::

certain comments touching the merits of the

petition itself. This would influence the learned

Magistrate while deciding the main petition on

merits. In this view, these observations must be

expunged and the order of the Magistrate should

be restored.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the petitioner has suppressed her

marriage with one Srinivasachari. She has made

false claim against the respondent for maintenance

even though they never lived together. The

Sessions Judge is justified in setting aside the

interim order passed by the Magistrate.

6. If the impugned order is perused, as has

been argued by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the Sessions Judge has made certain

observations which may influence the Magistrate

while deciding the main petition filed by the

petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of :: 5 ::

Women from Domestic Violence Act. It was not

necessary for the Sessions Court to have made

such observations. Though in the operative

portion it is stated that the trial court shall decide

the petition on merits without being influenced by

any of the observations, certainly the observations

made in the impugned order will prejudice the

case of the petitioner. The scope of the appeal

preferred challenging the order of granting interim

maintenance is limited, the appellate Court should

examine whether the facts and circumstances

warranted granting of interim maintenance or not.

Anything that has to be decided after holding

enquiry should not be adverted to. Therefore the

observations that the learned Sessions Judge has

made are not justifiable and need to be expunged.

7. So far as granting interim maintenance is

concerned, the respondent has disputed his

relationship with the petitioner and his contention :: 6 ::

is that the petitioner is already married to another

person. It is a matter of enquiry. However, it

appears that the respondent is the biological

father of the child. In this view, a question arises

whether the petitioner and the respondent really

lived together for a certain period of time. In a

situation like this, the learned Sessions Judge

could have at least confirmed the order of the

Magistrate for paying the maintenance to the

child. The entire order is set aside which is not at

all justifiable. I find that there is a case for

interference in this revision as the Sessions Court

has committed an error. Hence, I pass the

following :-

ORDER

(a) Petition is allowed.

(b) The impugned order of the Sessions

Court is set aside.

:: 7 ::

(c) The order of the Magistrate is

restored, but it is modified in such a

way that the respondent shall

deposit the interim maintenance of

Rs.2,000/- payable to the petitioner

in the court of Magistrate till the

main petition is decided on merits.