Karnataka High Court
Siddramappa S/O Snganna Jani vs Kavita D/O Madivalappa Hadapad on 18 December, 2023
1 CRL.R.P.NO.100322 OF 2023
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100322 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100321 OF 2023
IN CRL.R.P.NO.100322 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SIDDARAMAPPA S/O. SANGANNA JANI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: ASST. STATION MASTER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI DIVISION,
R/O: VYSAN COLONY, HOSPET.
DIST: BALLARI-583101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RANJITA ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VN
VN BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
AND:
2023.12.21
13:38:05
+0530
KAVITA D/O. MADIVALAPPA HADAPAD
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KESHAVA NAGAR, NEAR RAILWAY GATE,
DHARWAD-580002.
ALSO C/O KATAVAKAR BUILDING,
RADDI COLONY,
NEAR BIKKANNAVAR COMPOUND
SARASWATPUR DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. D. L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE)
2 CRL.R.P.NO.100322 OF 2023
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THAT THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN
CRL. APPEAL NO.21/2022 DATED 25.07.2023 AND THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND CJM, DHARWAD IN CRIMINAL MISC
NO.38/2016, 13.01.2022 MAY PLEASE BE SET ASIDE BY
ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SIDDARAMAPPA S/O. SANGANNA JANI
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: ASST. STATION MASTER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBBALLI DIVISION,
R/O: VYSAN COLONY, HOSPET.
DIST: BALLARI-583101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.RANJITA ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KAVITA D/O. MADIVALAPPA HADAPAD
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KATAVAKAR BUILDING, MALAMADDI,
SARASWATPUR, NEAR POST OFFICE,
DHARWAD-580002.
2. APOORVA D/O. SIDRAMAPPA JANI
AGE: 07 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR R/BY HER NATURAL MOTHER
AND M/G RESP.NO.1.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R1 & R2;
R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1)
3 CRL.R.P.NO.100322 OF 2023
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THAT THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN
CRL. APPEAL NO.23/2022 DATED 25.07.2023 AND THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND CJM, DHARWAD IN CRL. MISC
NO.38/2016, 13.01.2022 MAY PLEASE BE SET ASIDE BY
ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 14.09.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two Revision Petitions are filed by the
petitioner/husband under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,
challenging the dismissal of appeal filed by him and allowing
the appeal filed by his wife and daughter and thereby
enhancing the maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.18,000/-
to respondent No.1/wife and granting maintenance at the
rate of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2/daughter.
2. The trial Court allowed petition filed by
respondent No.1 under Section 12 of Protect of Women from
Domestic Violence Act (for short 'DV Act'), granting
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.10,000/- p.m. from the
date of petition. She challenged the same in
Crl.A.No.23/2022 along with her daughter as appellant No.2.
In Crl.A.No.21/2022, the petitioner challenged the order
passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the
petition filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 12 of the
DV act.
3. It is contended by the respondent No.1 that she
belongs to schedule caste, whereas petitioner belongs to
Lingayath community. During 2014 they fell in love and got
married. Their marriage is also registered. Through their
wedlock respondent No.2 is born to them. Later, in order to
please his parents, petitioner filed a suit to declare their
marriage as null and void, on the ground that it was formed
by exerting force on him. Even after the filing of such suit,
they live together. However, later on he prevented her from
entering the matrimonial home. Initially, she filed
Crl.Misc.No.12/2015, wherein she was granted maintenance
at the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.m. Due to the intervention of
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
elders it was withdrawn before the Lok Adalath on
12.03.2016. After the birth of respondent No.2, petitioner
failed to visit them and without any alternative she filed the
petition.
4. In the statement of objections, though petitioner
admit acquaintance between him and respondent No.1, he
has denied the factum of marriage. He has alleged that
respondent No.1's mother with the help of henchman forced
him to exchange garland in the temple. The registration of
marriage is also done exerting force and threat on his life. He
admits filing of suit in O.S.No.3/2015. Though he has also
admitted that he is working in South western Railways, he
has denied the income and his liability to maintain
respondent No.1/wife. He claimed that after deductions, he is
getting only a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Petitioner has admitted
the filing of Crl.Misc.No.12/2015 and grant of maintenance at
the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.m. and that after compromise it was
withdrawn. The petitioner has also contended that he was
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
forced to sign the compromise petition, giving threat and
exerting pressure through the henchman.
5. At the enquiry, respondent No.1 examined herself
as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 18.
6. Petitioner got himself examined as RW-1 and
relied upon Ex.R1 to 31.
7. The trial Court partly allowed the petition granting
maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to respondent
No.1.
8. The Session Court dismissed the appeal filed by
petitioner. It allowed the appeal filed by respondents by
enhancing the maintenance payable to respondent No.1 to
Rs.18,000/- p.m during her lifetime and granted
maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to respondent
No.2 from the date of petition till her marriage or till she is
able to earn, whichever is earlier.
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
9. Challenging the dismissal of appeal filed by him
and allowing the appeal filed by respondents and thereby
enhancing the maintenance, petitioner has come up with
these petitions, contending that the impugned orders are
erroneous, illegal, improper and perverse. Both Courts have
erred in granting maintenance, especially in the light of
specific defence taken by him. The observation of the Courts
below that he has not challenged the judgment and decree in
M.C.No.254/2016 and M.C.No.216/2016 is factually wrong.
He has filed MFA.No.101760/2019 and MFA.No.101834/2019
and they are pending. The parents and other family
members are dependent on the petitioner. Respondent No.1
is having source of income and her parents are rich.
Respondents are not entitled for any maintenance from the
petitioner. After deductions, petitioner is getting only
Rs.20,566/- out of salary of Rs.70,398/-. Therefore, granting
maintenance at the rate of Rs.28,000/- p.m to respondent
No.1 and Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2 is highly excessive
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
and prays to allow the petitions, set aside the judgment and
order of trial Court as well as the Session Court.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondents supported the order of the Sessions Court and
sought for dismissal of the petitions.
11. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the
record.
12. Thus, alleging that despite marrying her and
having a daughter through the said marriage, petition has
failed and neglected them, respondent No.1 filed petition
under Section 12 of DV Act, seeking various relief including
maintenance. The petitioner has denied the relationship
between him and respondents contending that his marriage
with respondent No.1 was performed forcefully with the help
of henchman by exchanging garlands in a temple and later in
the same manner, the marriage was registered with the
Registrar of the Marriages. However, during the course of
evidence, he has admitted that after the marriage, he and
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
respondent No.1 lived together and respondent No.2 is born
to him. He has also admitted of having performed baby
shower during the pregnancy of respondent No.1.
13. The petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.3/2015 to
declare his marriage with respondent No.1 as void. As
admitted by him, he has withdrawn the same with liberty to
file petition for divorce. Later in M.C.No.261/2016 filed by
him for divorce is dismissed and M.C.No.254/2016 filed by
respondent No.1 for restitution of conjugal rights was
allowed. In this petition, the petitioner has pleaded that he
has challenged both orders in MFA.No.101760/2019 and
MFA.No.101834/2019 and they are pending. Though
petitioner has contended that respondent No.1 is capable of
maintaining herself and her parents are very rich, he has not
placed any material on record to evidence the said fact.
14. Taking into consideration the basic salary and the
other emoluments which the petitioner is getting and having
regard to the fact that it is the responsibility of petitioner to
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
maintain respondents and also taking into consideration their
standard of living and the fact that respondent No.2 is child
aged six years, the trial Court has enhanced the maintenance
payable to respondent No.1 to Rs.18,000/-p.m. and granted
maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to respondent
No.2.
15. In support of petitions, petitioner has relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey
Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (Kalyan
Dey Chowdhury)1. In the said decision, taking into
consideration the fact that after getting divorce, the husband
has remarried and having a child through the second
marriage and he is having the responsibility of taking care of
them, Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the maintenance
payable to the wife from Rs.23,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.
However, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to
establish that apart from respondent, he is having the
responsibility of maintaining any other person. Taking into
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
consideration the gross salary drawn by the petitioner, the
Session Court has rightly enhanced the maintenance payable
to respondent No.1 and also granted maintenance to
respondent No.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no
justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order. In
the result, the petitions fail and accordingly the following:
ORDER
(i) Both petitions filed under Section 397 r/w
401 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/husband are
rejected.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated
25.07.2023 in Crl.A.No.21/2022 &
Crl.A.No.23/2022 on the file of IV
Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad
and order dated 13.01.2022 in
Crl.Misc.No.38/2016 on the file of III
C/W CRL.R.P.NO.100321 OF 2023
Addl.Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Dharwad are
confirmed.
(iii) The Registry is directed to send back the
trial Court as well as Session Court records
along with copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
