Karnataka High Court

Latha G L vs H R Rangaswamy on 7 December, 2023

                                          -1-
                                                      NC: 2023:KHC:44492
                                                  CRL.RP No. 780 of 2016




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                        BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
                    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 780 OF 2016
             BETWEEN:

             1.   LATHA G.L.
                  W/O H.R.RANGASWAMY
                  D/O LATE LAKSHMIGOWDA
                  AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

             2.   HRUTHIK
                  S/O H R RANGASWAMY
                  AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

                  (PETITIONER NO.2 BEING MINOR
                  REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.1 I.E. MOTHER)

                  BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GAVENAHALLI VILLAGE
                  KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
                  HASSAN-573 201
                                                             ...PETITIONERS
             (BY SRI.GANESH H.KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR
                 SRI.MANIAN K.B.S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally    AND:
signed by
                  H.R.RANGASWAMY
SUMITHRA R
                  S/O RANGEGOWDA
Location:
HIGH COURT        AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OF                TEACHER
KARNATAKA         GADENAHALLI KOPPALU
                  KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
                  HASSAN-573 128
                                                             ...RESPONDENT
             (BY SRI.CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)

                   THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
             ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.05.2016 PASSED BY THE III
             ADDL.   DIST.   AND    S.J.,  HASSAN    IN   APPEAL   BEARING
             CRL.A.NO.69/2015 AND THEREBY UPHOLD THE ORDER DATED
             27.03.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN IN
             CRL.MISC.NO.93/2012.
                                  -2-
                                                 NC: 2023:KHC:44492
                                            CRL.RP No. 780 of 2016




     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Revision Petitioner/respondent feeling aggrieved by

the judgment of First Appellate Court on the file of III

Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan in

Criminal Appeal No.69/2015 dated 3.5.2016 confirming the

order passed by the Trial Court on the file of Principal Civil

Judge and JMFC, Hassan in Criminal Miscellaneous

No.93/2012 dated 27.03.2015, preferred this revision

petition.

2. Parties to Revision Petition are referred with

their ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

3. Heard the arguments of both sides.

4. After hearing arguments of both sides and on

perusal of Trial Court records, including judgment of both

the courts below, the following points arise for

consideration:

NC: 2023:KHC:44492

1. Whether the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court under revision in confirming the order of the Trial Court in granting maintenance and other reliefs is perverse, capricious and legally not sustainable?

2. Whether interference of this Court is required?"

5. The petitioner being the wife of respondent and

petitioner No.2 being their son filed petition under Section

12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'PWDV Act' for

brevity) claiming various reliefs provided under the Act.

The first petitioner was subjected to domestic violence and

she was driven out of matrimonial home. The petitioners

were forced to take shelter in the parental house of

petitioner No.1. The respondent has denied the said

allegations of the petitioners. The Trial Court after taking

necessary evidence of the parties and after appreciation of

evidence on record partly allowed the petition by granting

maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- each to petitioner

NC: 2023:KHC:44492

Nos.1 and 2 and maintenance amount was ordered to

petitioner No.2 till the age of majority. Respondent was

also directed to make arrangements for shelter of

petitioners or in the alternative to pay Rs.3,000/- per

month. Further respondent was directed to pay

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to petitioners.

5. The respondent has challenged the said order of

the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court after re-

appreciation of evidence on record has partly allowed the

appeal and set aside the order of payment of house rent of

Rs.3,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Further,

grant of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to each of petitioners

came to be confirmed.

6. Petitioners have challenged the said order of

First Appellate Court in rejecting the claim towards house

rent of Rs.3,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

contending that First Appellate Court was not justified in

holding that domestic incident report shall have to be

taken into consideration before passing the order cannot

NC: 2023:KHC:44492

be legally sustained. The finance rendered by the

respondent for establishing the petty business of first

petitioner cannot be a ground to reject the claim of

compensation made by petitioners. The respondent is

working as a teacher and has got sufficient source of

income from salary. Therefore, prayed for restoration of

the order passed by Trial Court.

7. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner

during the course of arguments fairly submitted that

petitioner No.2 has now attained the age of majority and

as per the order of the Trial Court, petitioner No.2 is

entitled to maintenance amount till the age of majority.

Therefore, the appropriate quantum of maintenance be

fixed to which petitioner No.1 wife is entitled.

8. Per contra, learned counsel of respondent has

argued that divorce proceedings have already been

initiated by respondent and the parties can address their

claim of permanent alimony in the said case. Therefore,

there are no grounds to restore the order of the Trial Court

NC: 2023:KHC:44492

in awarding compensation. The respondent is paying

money by way of transfer to petitioner No.2. Therefore,

any enhancement of maintenance amount or restoration of

rent as ordered by the Trial Court is unwarranted.

9. The first petitioner is the wife of respondent and

petitioner No.2 is their son and since from the year 2012,

they are residing separately and they are in litigation

before the Court. Undisputedly, respondent has already

initiated divorce proceedings under M.C.No.206/2018

which came to be dismissed on 10.3.2022. The

respondent has challenged the same before this Court in

MFA No.3350/2022 and the same is pending. The courts

below have recorded a concurrent finding that the first

petitioner was subjected to domestic violence while she

was staying in the house of respondent and the same is

based on the material evidence on record. The petitioners

since from the day they being driven out of matrimonial

house, they are under the shelter of parents of first

petitioner.

NC: 2023:KHC:44492

10. The counsel for petitioners has submitted that

respondent is not regular in making payment of

maintenance amount awarded by the Trial Court, which is

confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The respondent

used to give money only when execution petition is filed

and after his appearance, make some payment in

instalments. The respondent has not produced any

evidence to show that the first petitioner has got sufficient

source of income and she is capable of maintaining herself

and petitioner No.2. It is the contention of respondent that

he has financed Rs.2,00,000/- to establish petty business

of first petitioner. However, there is no requisite evidence

placed on record by the respondent to prove the said fact.

The respondent even if he has invested some money for

running business of the first petitioner, there is no

evidence on record to prove income if any, derived out of

the said business, would be sufficient to maintain

themselves. The respondent is admittedly working as a

school teacher and he is still in service. The

NC: 2023:KHC:44492

maintenance awarded by the Trial Court, which is

confirmed by First Appellate Court is by taking into

consideration salary income of respondent for the month of

October and November 2011. Now almost more than 12

years have been passed and respondent is regularly

getting salary with a hike every year. Looking to the time

gap from 2011 to 2023, which is more than 12 years, the

salary income of respondent must have been substantially

increased from time to time. Therefore, under these

circumstances, in view of the fact that petitioner No.2 has

attained majority is now not entitled for maintenance and

it is only the first petitioner is entitled for enhancement of

maintenance, if any.

11. It is the duty of respondent to make provision of

separate residence for petitioners. The petitioners are now

under the shelter of parents of first petitioner. The learned

counsel for respondent has argued that she is residing in

the house of her parents and as such, she is not entitled

for any money towards rent. On the other hand, learned

NC: 2023:KHC:44492

counsel for Revision Petitioners argued that

petitioners were earlier residing with the father of first

petitioner in the house. Now, after the death of father of

first petitioner, they are now again under mercy of brother

of first petitioner. The Trial Court on appreciating the

evidence on record has fixed quite reasonable rent of

Rs.3,000/- p.m. considering the place Gavenahalli Village

where petitioners are residing and the standard of living to

which they are used to live. Therefore, First Appellate

Court was not justified in rejecting the claim for rent of

Rs.3,000/- for separate accommodation.

12. In view of the fact that second petitioner has now

attained the age of majority, liability of respondent to pay

the maintenance amount to second petitioner comes to an

end. Looking to the time gap between the date on

which maintenance amount has been granted to the

petitioners and taking into consideration the rise in the

price of essential commodities, first petitioner is entitled for

enhancement in a sum of Rs.2,000/- in addition to the

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44492

amount of maintenance amount already granted by the

Trial Court which totally works out to Rs.5,000/-. The

parties can work out the claim of compensation while

deciding the alimony in the matrimonial proceedings.

Consequently, proceed to pass the following :

ORDER

The Revision Petition filed by Revision Petitioners is

hereby partly allowed.

The respondent is directed to pay enhanced

maintenance of Rs.2,000/- in addition to maintenance

amount of Rs.3,000/- which is already granted to the first

petitioner totally amounting to Rs.5,000/- p.m. from the

date of this revision petition.

The respondent is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/-

p.m. as rent for separate accommodation to the

petitioners.

The respondent is liable to pay maintenance amount

to petitioner No.2 till the date of his attaining majority.

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44492

Parties are at liberty to work out the claim of

compensation while deciding the permanent alimony in the

matrimonial proceedings.