Karnataka High Court
Mr M Vasu vs Smt Ranjitha on 6 December, 2023
-1-
CRL.RP No. 473 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 473 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MR M VASU
S/O H GOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.24, 1ST MAIN
5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR R H FOR
SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT RANJITHA
D/O L LINGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
2. SMT. RACHANA
D/O M VASU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
3. MANYA
D/O M VASU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
4. MR. TARUN
S/O M VASU, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
SINCE R4 IS MINOR, REP. BY HIS MOTHER &
NATURAL GUARDIAN - R1
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 RESIDING AT
348, 7TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B S JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W SECTION 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2020 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118/2017, FROM THE FILE OF THE LXII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND
ETC.,
THIS CRL.RP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU ON
30.08.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE
DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 473 of 2021
ORDER
1. The petitioner who is the husband of respondent
No.1, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order
of the Trial Court dated 29.12.2016 in Crl.Misc.No.351/2011 on
the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-II,
Bengaluru and its confirmation order dated 10.06.2020 in
Crl.A.No.118/2017 on the file of the LXII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH. 63).
2. For the sake of convenience, the ranking of the
parties henceforth will be considered according to their
rankings before the Trial Court.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
3. The petitioner herein and the respondent No.1 are
legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was
solemnized on 19.11.1995. They have 3 children. It is stated
in the petition that, at the time of marriage, jewels, cash and
household articles were given. It is further stated that the
petitioner herein was addicted to alcohol and used to harass
the respondent No.1 and her family members to bring
additional dowry. On 05.08.2009, the petitioner herein had
assaulted the respondent No.1 and caused nasal bone fracture.
A complaint was lodged by respondent No.1 before Magadi
Road Police Station against the petitioner herein, his brother
and his sister-in-law which is pending for consideration before
III ACMM, Bengaluru.
4. It is further noticed here that the marriage between
the petitioner and the respondent No.1 has been dissolved by
virtue of decree of divorce granted by the Family Court on
19.11.1995. It is an admitted fact that both the petitioner and
the respondent No.1 along with her children are staying away
from petitioner since 2009. The respondent No.1 being
aggrieved by the desertion, filed a criminal miscellaneous case
before the Trial Court and obtained order under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
wherein the Trial Court directed the petitioner herein to pay
Rs.5,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos.2 to 4. It is
also directed the petitioner herein to pay compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- payable to the respondent No.1. Further
directed the petitioner herein to provide alternative
accommodation and also rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. The
said order has been passed on 29.12.2016. In an appeal
against the said order, the Appellate Court after re-appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence on record, confirmed the
order of the Trial Court.
5. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar R.H., learned counsel for
the petitioner and Shri B.S.Jeevan Kumar, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the judgment of the Trial Court and the first
Appellate Court are perverse and against the settled principles
of law.
7. It is further contended that, the Trial Court failed to
take note of the definition of 'cruelty' as defined under Sections
2 and 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
(for short 'DV Act'). The cruelty and harassment has not been
proved by the respondent No.1, hence, the order of
maintenance passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the
Appellate Court are required to be set aside.
8. It is further submitted that, it is an admitted fact
that both the petitioner and respondent No.1 along with
children were staying separately since 2009. The petitioner is
unemployed and not able to maintain himself. However, the
respondent No.1 is working at Padmavathi Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd.,
situated at Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and she is earning
handsome salary. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 have also
attained majority, therefore, they are not entitled for
maintenance. Making such submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner prays to set aside the order passed by the Courts
below in granting maintenance to the respondents.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
vehemently justified the orders of the Courts below in granting
maintenance to the respondents and submitted that the
marriage is admitted, the children are born to them. The Trial
Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on
record, opined that the respondent No.1 had been subjected to
cruelty or in other words, subjected to domestic violence and
granted the maintenance. It is further submitted that, in an
appeal, the Appellate Court directed the petitioner herein by
modifying the order in granting the compensation in respect of
respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. As per the said order, the second
respondent is entitled to have maintenance upto 15.09.2014,
the third respondent is entitled to have maintenance upto
26.04.2017, and the fourth respondent is entitled for
maintenance till 05.05.2023. The maintenance awarded by the
Appellate Court in respect of the respondents is appropriate
and the respondents herein have not filed any cross-objections
in respect of insufficiency of maintenance. Making such
submission, learned counsel for the respondents prays to
dismiss the petition.
10. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the
findings of the Courts below in awarding the maintenance, it is
needless to say that the marriage is admitted between the
petitioner and respondent No.1 and it is also an admitted fact
that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the children of petitioner
and respondent No.1. As on the date of filing the criminal
miscellaneous petition, respondent Nos.2 to 4 were minors,
they were exclusively depending on the income of respondent
No.1.
11. PW.1 in her evidence has narrated the domestic
violence which she was subjected to in her matrimonial home
and withstood the cross-examination. It is a proved fact that
the respondent No.1 had filed a case against the petitioner and
his family members in respect of cruelty and harassment which
is pending before the III ACMM at Bengaluru. It is also an
admitted fact that both the petitioner and the respondent No.1
were not in good terms and obtained divorce by filing a petition
before the Family Court in M.C. No.32/2010.
12. Now, it is relevant to refer to the provision under
Section 2(b) of DV Act which defines the definition of 'child'. As
per the said provision, the child means, any person below the
age of 18 years, includes any adopted, step or foster child. The
Appellate Court, in para No.16, has rightly concluded how the
children, who are arraigned as respondent Nos.2 to 4, are
entitled for maintenance. It is needless to say that the
petitioner herein has to pay the maintenance in respect of
respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the date of filing of the petition
before the Trial Court till they have attained majority.
13. The petitioner herein though he has stated that the
respondent No.1 was working in a private hospital and drawing
handsome salary, nothing is produced to substantiate his
contention. Mere making submission that the respondent No.1
is an earning member and drawing handsome salary, would not
sufficient to avoid in paying the maintenance. On perusal of
the findings of the Courts below in awarding the maintenance
appears to be appropriate and correct. There is no occasion for
this Court to interfere with the said findings.
14. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
UN, Bss
