Karnataka High Court
S. Ambrose vs Smt Cecil Kumari Metilda @ Sashi on 15 March, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.89/2013
BETWEEN:
S. AMBROSE ,
S/O LATE SUSAINATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS A JUNIOR ATTENDER,
OFFICE OF THE BWSSB, FRAZERTOWN ,
BENGALURU-560 056. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NARAYAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAJESHWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. CECIL KUMARI METILDA @ SASHI,
W/O S. AMBROSE,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT C/O MARRY PATRICK,
NO.161, REDDY PALYA, 2ND CROSS,
HAL POST, VIMANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 017. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI G.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2012 PASSED BY THE 1ST
MMTC, BENGALURU IN C.MISC.NO.62/2012 AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.11.2012 PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.J., P.O., FTC-
III, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.25105/2012.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent
before the Trial Court is that the respondent claimed
maintenance from the petitioner contending that this petitioner
is not taking care of the children and also the respondent and
invoked Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act. In support of her claim, she examined herself as
P.W.1 and marked the document Ex.P.1 i.e., marriage
certificate. The petitioner herein did not choose to contest the
matter before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after considering
the material available on record, awarded maintenance of
Rs.1,000/- per month each in all Rs.3,000/- per month in favour
of the respondent and two children. The same has been
challenged before the Appellate Court by the respondent herein
in Crl.Appeal.No.25105/2014 for enhancement. The Appellate
Court taking note of the salary of the petitioner herein as
Rs.29,000/- per month and having considered the material on
record and also the grounds urged in the appeal, enhanced the
maintenance to Rs.3,000/- each. Hence, the present petition is
filed before this Court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner is getting salary of Rs.25,000/- per month
and he is working in BWSSB as Junior Attender and he has to
maintain his parents and also has to pay the rent. The
enhancement of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- is highly exorbitant
and moreover the respondent is an educated women and a
working lady and the Trial Judge without considering the said
fact into consideration, passed the order.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also on perusal of the material on record, the petitioner
herein has not contested the matter in Crl.Misc.No.62/2012 and
the evidence and the pleadings of the respondent remains
unchallenged. It is important to note that the said order has
not been challenged by the petitioner herein and the respondent
only approached the Appellate Court for enhancement of
maintenance. The fact that the petitioner is working in BWSSB
is not in dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that he is getting salary of Rs.25,000/- per month.
The learned counsel though submits that he is getting salary of
Rs.25,000/- per month and he is working as Junior Attender in
BWSSB, he has not produced any salary certificate before the
Court. The respondent is the wife and she has two children to
maintain and the amount awarded is Rs.3,000/- each and out of
Rs.3,000/-, she has to maintain herself and provide education to
two children along with food and other expenses. The amount
awarded by the Appellate Court is also meager taking note of the
cost of living. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount awarded
by the Appellate Court is exorbitant. The Appellate Court while
reconsidering the material, in paragraph No.7 of its judgment,
has taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 and also taken note of
the cost of living and educational expenses of the children. The
very case of the respondent has been unchallenged. Hence,
there is no merit in the revision petition.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
