Sri Venkatesha vs Smt Lakshmi Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 866 Kant

                                          -1-
                                                CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                      BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
                CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 494 OF 2019

            BETWEEN:

            SRI. VENKATESHA
            S/O VENKATESHALU,
            AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
            EMPLOYEE IN MUNICIPALITY
            R/O JAI BHEEMA NAGARA,
            NEAR RANJAPPA CIRCLE,
            OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI,
            SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
                                                          ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI
            W/O VENAKTESHA,
            AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
            R/O JAIBHEEMA NAGARA,
            OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI
            SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
Digitally                                                ...RESPONDENT
signed by
SUMA
Location:         THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
HIGH
COURT OF    SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
KARNATAKA
            PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2018 IN
            CRL.A.NO.5027/2016 FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE
            SECTION 28(1) OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC
            VIOLENCE ACT AND SECTION 374 OF CR.P.C.

                 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
            COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-
                                         CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019




                             ORDER

The petitioner has assailed the correctness of the order

dated 10.07.2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,

Bhadradavthi in C.Misc.No.1/2012 awarding a sum of

Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the respondent. The petitioner

has also assailed the judgment dated 26.09.2018 passed by the

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at

Bhadravathi in Crl.A.No.5027/2016, by which, the order of the

trial Court was confirmed.

2. The respondent submitted a complaint before the

Protection Officer under the Protection of Women from Demotic

Violation Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2005'

for short) for a protection order under Section 18 and for

monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the Act, 2005. The

respondent claimed that she was given in marriage to the

petitioner and that they had 2 daughters and a son from the

marriage. She alleged that the petitioner did not make any

arrangement for her maintenance and maintenance of her

children. She claimed that the petitioner had developed an illicit

relationship with a lady named Anjamma and that he had

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

totally neglected to maintain respondent and her children. She

claimed that the petitioner was a sweeper in the City Municipal

Corporation and was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- to

Rs.20,000/- per month. She therefore sought for an order for

maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the

petition and claimed that he was no way concerned with the

respondent. He claimed that he had married Anjamma and that

he had a daughter from the said marriage. He claimed that

during the year 2003-2006, he was suffering from mental

disorder and was availing medical facilities at Andhra Pradesh.

He claimed that during his stay at Andhra Pradesh, the

respondent had trespassed into the house and started residing

there and claimed the status of wife. He contended that the

respondent was not his wife and was attempting to exploit the

situation laying a claim to his income. He contended that his

salary was only a sum of Rs.1,951/- and that he had to

maintain his wife-Smt.Anjamma and their daughter. Based on

these contentions, the trial Court set down the case for trial.

The respondent was examined as PW.1 and she marked Exs.P1

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

to P18. The petitioner was examined as RW.1 and a witness

was examined as RW.2 and they marked Ex.R1.

3. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

trial Court held that the respondent had established that she

was the wife of the petitioner and therefore, directed the

petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as

maintenance to the respondent and to pay a sum of

Rs.10,000/- as compensation under Section 22 of the Act,

2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed

Crl.A.No.5027/2016, which was dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision

petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

there was no relationship between the petitioner and the

respondent and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in

awarding maintenance. He submitted that Ex.R1 is a Medical

Certificate, which indicated the mental health of the petitioner

and therefore, the contention urged in his defense was

probable.

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that the petitioner had admitted that the respondent

had lodged a complaint against him before the Women Police in

the year 2003. The learned counsel further contended that the

petitioner admitted Exs.P15 to P17, which are the photographs

where the petitioner and the respondent were found. He

contended that the birth certificate at Exs.P5 to P7 contained

the name of the petitioner as the father of the children of the

respondent. Further he claimed that the Voter ID and the ration

card also indicated the name of the petitioner and the

respondent as husband and wife and these documents were

sufficient to establish the relationship between the petitioner

and the respondent. He also contended that the petitioner is

bound to maintain the respondent regardless of the fact

whether petitioner and the respondent were married, if they

have lived together as husband & wife for a long period. He

contended that there is ample proof to establish that the

petitioner and the respondent were living as husband and wife

under the same roof for a substantial period and therefore,

even assuming that there was no relationship between the

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner is bound to

maintain the respondent.

7. I have considered the submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel

for the respondent.

8. It is evident from the judgment of the trial Court as

well as the Appellate Court that the petitioner had claimed that

the respondent had trespassed into his house and claimed to be

his wife. Even if the petitioner was mentally not well as per

Ex.D1, that in itself does not justify his contention that the

respondent had trespassed into the official quarters given to

him. The petitioner did nothing to complain the concerned

officials about the alleged trespass by respondent. The

petitioner did not dispute the fact that the respondent had

lodged a complaint against him before the Children and Women

Development Officer in the year 2003 itself. He also did not

dispute the photographs found at Exs.P15 to P17 where both

the petitioner and respondent were found together. He also did

not dispute Ex.P5 to P7, which are the birth certificates of the

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

children where the names of the petitioner and respondent are

found as father and mother. The Voter ID as well as the Ration

Card also bears the names of the petitioner and the respondent

as husband and wife. These documents categorically indicate

that the petitioner and the respondent were husband and wife.

In view of the strange contentions urged by the petitioner in his

statement, it is quite probable that the petitioner had neglected

to maintain the respondent and therefore, the trial Court as

well as the Appellate Court were justified in awarding

maintenance of a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and

compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

9. This Court does not find any reason to interfere

with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as

the Appellate Court.

10. In that view of the matter, this revision petition

lacks merits and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE NR/-