Karnataka High Court
Kishore Kumar vs K. Shamala on 5 March, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.235/2022
BETWEEN:
KISHORE KUMAR
S/O LATE GOPALA KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.307, 3RD FLOOR
VANDANA ENCLAVE
8TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA,
BENGALURU. ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NALINI JAYANTHI R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
K. SHAMALA
W/O KISHORE KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.4417, ST.MARY'S ROAD
8TH CROSS, NEAR MARUTHI CIRCLE,
N.R.MOHALLA, MYSURU. ...RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.185/2020 AND IN CONSEQUENCE
THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 19.11.2020 PASSED ON I.A. FILED
UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 IN CRL.MISC.NO.42/2016 BY
THE III ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is listed for admission.
This revision petition is filed to set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.A.No.185/2020 and in
consequence, the interim order dated 19.11.2020 passed on I.A.
filed under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 in Crl.Misc.No.42/2016 on the file of the III
Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that the respondent herein has filed an application under Section
23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005
seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month. The
Trial Court, after considering the material on record, particularly,
the format of affidavit of assets, income and expenditure,
awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. Being aggrieved
by the said order, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.185/2020,
wherein the format of affidavit of assets, income and
expenditure is also filed before the Appellate Court. The Apex
Court also, in the judgment in the case of RAJNESH VS. NEHA
has issued the guidelines for awarding maintenance. The
Appellate Court also, after considering the material on record,
reduced the maintenance and ordered to pay interim
maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, the present
revision petition is filed before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the amount of Rs.15,000/- per month
awarded as interim-maintenance is on the higher side and
though he is getting salary of Rs.82,000/-, he is having mother
and also younger brother and they are depending on the income
of this petitioner. She would also contend that both the Courts
have committed an error in directing the petitioner to pay the
interim-maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. It is also her
contention that the respondent is also self-earning and she is
running a Beauty Parlour at Mysuru and owns a four storied
house in N.R. Mohalla and having sufficient income to maintain
herself and this fact has not been appreciated by both the
Courts. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also on perusal of the material, it is not in dispute that the
marriage has taken place on 16.02.2014 and according to the
petitioner, she left the house in the month of December, 2014
itself. On perusal of the records, particularly
Crl.Misc.No.42/2016, it is seen that the same is filed in 2016.
The Trial Court, considering the judgments of the Apex Court in
ROHTASH SINGH VS. SMT. RAMENDRI reported in AIR 2000
SC 952 and the judgment in SHAILAJA AND ANOTHER VS.
KHOBBANNA reported in (2018) 12 SCC 199 and so also the
judgment in SUNITA KACHWAHA AND OTHERS VS. ANIL
KACHWAHA reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715, taken note of
self-earning income of the respondent-wife and considered the
material available on record and also taken note of the avocation
of the petitioner herein and comes to the conclusion that
Rs.20,000/- per month would be the just and reasonable
interim-maintenance and the same has been modified by the
Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also, taken note of the
monthly income of the petitioner in a sum of Rs.82,000/- and
taken note of loan repayment of Rs.28,752/- and the fact that
the respondent also not denied the fact that the petitioner has to
maintain his mother and younger brother.
5. Having considered the material on record, the
Appellate Court reassessed the monthly interim-maintenance
and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as against
Rs.20,000/- per month awarded by the Trial Court. When such
reasoned order has been passed by the Appellate Court, having
taken note of the income of the petitioner as Rs.82,000/- per
month and the dependency of the mother and younger brother
and also repayment of loan amount of Rs.28,752/-, directed the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. When such
reasoning is given by the Appellate Court, I do not find any error
committed by the Appellate Court in re-examining the material
available on record and based on the salary certificate of the
petitioner, the Appellate Court has ordered to pay a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent which is an interim-
maintenance during the pendency of the petition. Hence, I do
not find any ground to admit the revision petition.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2022 for stay
is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
