Smt.Padmavva vs Shri.Chandrappa Rangappa Madar
2022 Latest Caselaw 8807 Kant

                          -1-




                                 CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
     CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100277 OF 2017 (482)
BETWEEN:

1.   SMT.PADMAVVA,
     W/O CHANDARAPPA MADAR,
     AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
     R/O: KHANATTI,
     NOW R/AT: KALLIGUDDI VILLAGE,
     TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

2.   NINGAPPA S/O CHANDRAPPA MADAR,
     AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
     SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
     M/G PETITIONER NO.1
     SMT.PADMAVVA
     W/O CHANDARAPPA MADAR,
     AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
     R/O: KHANATTI,
     NOW R/AT: KALLIGUDDI VILLAGE,
     TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                           ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI. CHANDRAPPA RANGAPPA MADAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: VETERINARY HOSPITAL MUDALAGI,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.P.G.NAIK and SRI G.B.NAIK, ADVOCATES)
                             -2-




                                   CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO
ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 14.11.2016 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO. 206 OF 2015 ON FILE OF XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK WHEREIN THE
LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI SITTING
AT GOKAK WHERE IN IT WAS PLEASED TO PARTLY ALLOW THE
PETITION OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND CONFIRMED THE
ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT IN AWARDING MAINTENANCE TO
PETITIONER NO. 2 AND FURTHER WAS PLEASED TO HOLD
THAT PETITIONER NO. 1 IS NOT ENTITLED FOR MAINTENANCE
AS SHE HAS NOT PROVED THAT SHE IS LEGALLY WEDDED
WIFE OF RESPONDENT BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED
30.04.2015 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLNEOUS NO. 193 OF 2009 ON
THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
OF GOKAK AND THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASE TO HOLD
THAT THE PETITIONER NO. 1 IS LEGALLY WEDDED WIFE OF
RESPONDENT AND SHE IS ENTITILE FOR MONTHLY
MAINTENANCE FROM RESPONDENT AND ETC.
     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                         ORDER

Heard Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Smt.P.G.Naik, learned counsel

for the respondent and perused the records.

2. The present petition is filed under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-

a. Call for the records in Cri.Misc.No.193/2009 on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class of Gokak.

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

b. Allow this criminal petition by setting aside the order dated 14.11.2016 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 206 of 2015 on file of XII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak wherein the learned District and Sessions Judge Belagavi sitting at Gokak where in it was pleased to partly allow the petition of the respondent herein and confirmed the order of the trial court in awarding maintenance to petitioner No. 2 and further was pleased to hold that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for maintenance as she has not proved that she is legally wedded wife of respondent by modifying the order dated 30.04.2015 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 193 of 2009 on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class of Gokak and this Hon'ble Court be please to hold that the petitioner No. 1 is legally wedded wife of respondent and she is entitle for monthly maintenance from respondent.

c.    Further this Hon'ble Court may also be
pleased         to      modify      the       order     of

Crl.Misc.No.193/2009 on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gokak and in Criminal Revision Petition No.206/2015 on the file of XII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak and enhance maintenance

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

amount from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.6,000/- per month to petitioner no.2 and modify the order of maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.193/2009 to Rs.1,500/- to Rs.6,000/- enhancing maintenance and direct the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- each to petitioner No.1 and 2.

d. Grant such other and further relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1 s t petitioner is the wife of the respondent and

she is legally wedded wife of the respondent and 2 n d

petitioner is the son born to 1 s t petitioner and the

respondent. On the ground of desertion of the

petitioners, petitioners approached the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Gokak in Criminal

Miscellaneous No.193/2009 for grant of monthly

maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said

petition was contested by the respondent herein and

after recording the evidence of the parties and also

considering the material evidence placed on record,

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

the learned Magistrate allowed the petition awarding

monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- for the 1st

petitioner and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation

expenses. Being aggrieved by the said order,

respondent has challenged the order passed by the

learned Magistrate in Criminal Revision Petition

No.206/2015. The learned District Judge after

hearing the parties in detail, allowed the revision

petition in part confirming the order passed by the

trial Court awarding the maintenance of Rs.1,500/-

to respondent No.2 from the date of petition and in

respect of son of the 1 s t petitioner, the order was set

aside. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are

before this Court.

4. In the petition, following grounds have

been raised:

• The impugned Order of Revision Court is against the principles of natural justice and against settled principles of law and therefore this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the finding

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

that the petitioner No. 1 is not the wife of the respondent and be pleased to Order to pay monthly maintenance to petitioner No. 1 as per law.

• The impugned Order of Revision Court is against the procedure of law and against settled principles of law and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.

• The Revision Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has specifically stated that petitioner No. 1 herein is his wife and the said fact clearly discloses that he is playing with life of petitioners. Therefore the finding that petitioner No.1 is not wife of respondent may kindly be set aside.

• The Revision Court failed to appreciate documents produced by the petitioners ExP2, ExP4, Ex P5, which clearly discloses that the petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the petitioner. Therefore the finding of Revision Court as petitioner No. 1 is not wife of the respondent is against settled principles of law and the same is liable to be set quashed.

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

• The petitioners submits that, the Revision Court failed to appreciate that Smt.Shobhavva is not the wife of the respondent and the respondent has got created documents which is disclosed by EXP 3 on 15 March 2008 and the respondent is womanizer and when he got illicit relation with Shobhavva he got entered the name of Shobhavva. Therefore the impugned Judgment of Revision Court is liable to be set aside.

• The Revision court failed to appreciate Ex R6 where in the said scheme was not in existence in the said year. That Ex P12 is suspicious and it clearly discloses that the name is erased and overwritten and ExP12 is obtained by producing Leaving certificate and not by her own. That Revision Court failed to peruse Ex P14 and Ex R15 and both are suspicious. Therefore the documents on record clearly discloses that the documents produced by the respondent are all after though and the respondent taking undue advantage of his position, is misusing his position by creating

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

documents. Therefore it is prayed that the Order of Crl Mis petition with regard to finding that the petitioner No. 1 is the wife of respondent may kindly be upheld and the Order of Revision Court with that regard may kindly be set aside and be pleased to direct respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs5,000/- each to both petitioners.

• The Revision Court failed to appreciate Ex R13 which supports that petitioner No. 1 wherein respondent had a wife by name Sirmavva and she die in 2002 and after his death respondent married petitioner No.1. The Revision Court failed to appreciate the said document and erred in holding that the petitioner No.1 is not the wife of respondent. Therefore the said finding of the Revision Court may kindly be set aside and be pleased to hold that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent

• The Revision Court failed to appreciate prior to 2008 the terms between petitioner No.1 and respondent were

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

not good and the petitioner is innocent lady and the respondent taking undue advantage of her illiteracy has got created documents against the petitioner No.1 and 2 and Ex.R1 complaint is also after though Hence the findings of the Revision Court with regard to holding the petitioner No. 1 is not wife of respondent is liable to be quashed.

• The Revision Court failed to appreciate the evidence and admissions given by the respondent and totally discarded the evidence and therefore the findings of the Trial Court with regard to husband and wife relationship between the petitioner No.1 and respondent may kindly be upheld.

• The Revision Court failed to appreciate the findings of AIR 1999 SC 3348 and the findings of 2014 Crl LJ 1076 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Courts have appreciate the fact as to how the valid marriage should be considered. Therefore the findings of the Trail Court is to be upheld.

- 10 -

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

• That the Trail Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner No.2 herein is minor boy studying and now the prices of essential commodities have raised and the petitioner No.2 cannot survive on the meager maintenance of Rs.1,500/- and as the petitioner No.1 is looking after well being she is in need of minimum Rs.6,000/ for her day today maintenance and hence the maintenance awarded to petitioner No.1 and 2 may kindly be enhanced from Rs.1,500/-p.m. to Rs.6,000/- p.m. each.

• The Trial court and the Revision Court failed to appreciate the respondent is earning Rs.16,000/- p.m. and he has unnecessarily made the petitioners to face trial and hence the cost awarded by the Trial Court may kindly be enhanced by modified the Judgment.

5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the

petition, Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for

the petitioners vehemently contended that learned

District Judge was incorrect in partly allowing the

- 11 -

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

revision petition and setting aside the order passed

by the learned trial Magistrate insofar as 2n d

petitioner is concerned and sought for allowing the

present petition.

6. Per contra, Smt.P.G.Naik, learned counsel

for the respondent vehemently contended that the

first appellate Court has rightly considered that the

2 n d petitioner is a son born to the 1 s t petitioner,

petitioners are not entitled for the maintenance in

view of the fact that the relationship is in dispute.

7. In view of the rival contentions of the

parties, this Court perused the material on record

meticulously.

8. On such perusal of the material on record,

it is seen that there is no dispute that the 1 s t

petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the

respondent. The material on record also indicates

that there is no contra evidence on record so as to

form a different opinion. Insofar as 2 n d petitioner is

- 12 -

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

concerned, though a feeble attempt is made that he

is not the son born to the respondent through 1 s t

petitioner, there is no evidence on record to

substantiate the same. If at all, if the 2 n d petitioner

is not born from the marital relationship of 1st

petitioner and the respondent, appropriate material

evidence must have been placed by the respondent

before the learned trial Magistrate or at least before

the first appellate Court by way of additional

evidence. No such material is forthcoming on record.

Therefore, the learned District Judge altering the

monthly maintenance ordered by the learned trial

Magistrate without there being any proper material

is incorrect and cannot be countenanced in law.

However, learned counsel for the respondent

contended that during pendency of the present

petition, the 2 n d petitioner has attained majority. It

is always open for the respondent to take a plea in

the intended execution petition as to the payment of

maintenance after the 2 n d petitioner has attained

- 13 -

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

age of majority i.e. 18 years. Till such time, the

order passed by the trial Magistrate is to be

complied by the respondent. Therefore, the

contentions urged on behalf of the respondent that

the respondent is not entitled to pay any

maintenance to the 2nd petitioner cannot be

countenanced in law. Accordingly, this Court pass

the following:-

ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned trial Magistrate in Criminal Miscellaneous No.193/2009 which is modified by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak in Criminal Revision Petition No.206/2015 is hereby set aside. The order of the learned trial Magistrate is restored.

However, the order of maintenance ordered by the trial Magistrate insofar as 2 n d petitioner who is the 1 s t petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No.193/2009 is

- 14 -

CRL.P No. 100277 of 2017

restricted till the 2nd petitioner-son Sri Ningappa attain majority.

The 1 s t petitioner being the wife, is also entitled to file necessary application before the trial Magistrate seeking enhancement of the maintenance as the same came to be passed in the year 2015 having regard to the present cost of living.

SD/-

JUDGE

CLK