Jitendra Prasad vs Smt Ranjitha Kumar Shaw
2023 Latest Caselaw 868 Kant

                                          -1-
                                                  CRL.RP No. 1404 of 2018




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                         BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
                   CRIINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1404 OF 2018

             BETWEEN:

             JITENDRA PRASAD
             S/O SHAMBUNATH PRASAD,
             AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
             M/522, VIKASNAGAR
             KUSMUNDA,
             KORBA DISTRICT - 495 454,
             CHATTISGARH.
                                                             ...PETITIONER
             (BY SRI. RAJENDRA DESAI, ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             1.    SMT. RANJITHA KUMAR SHAW
                   W/O JITENDRA PRASAD,
                   AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                   R/AT NO.30, 6TH CROSS
                   PULIKESHINAGAR,
                   (MUNESWARA LAYOUT)
                   ATTUR, YELAHANKA,
Digitally
                   BENGALURU - 560 064.
signed by
SUMA
Location:
             2.    MISS LISHIKA PRASAD
HIGH COURT         D/O JITENDRA PRASAD,
OF
KARNATAKA          AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
                   R/AT NO.30, 6TH CROSS
                   PULIKESHINAGAR,
                   (MUNESWARA LAYOUT)
                   ATTUR, YELAHANKA,
                   BENGALURU - 560 064.
                   REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
                   SMT. RANJITHA KUMAR SHAW
                                     -2-
                                            CRL.RP No. 1404 of 2018




3.   MASTER DHAWAL PRASAD
     S/O JITENDRA PRASAD
     AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.30, 6TH CROSS
     PULIKESHINAGAR,
     (MUNESWARA LAYOUT)
     ATTUR, YELAHANKA,
     BENGALURU - 560 064.
     REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
     SMT. RANJITHA KUMAR SHAW
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2018 PASSED BY
THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.1048/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

This revision petition is filed challenging the grant of

interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 herein by the MMTC-VI, Bengaluru in

Crl.Misc.No.213/2015. The petitioner has also challenged the

judgment dated 06.09.2018 passed by the LXIV Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1048/2016, by

which, it confirmed the order of interim maintenance awarded

by the trial Court.

CRL.RP No. 1404 of 2018

2. The respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3

filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women

from Demotic Violation Act, 2005 alleging domestic violence by

the petitioner herein. They filed an application numbered as

I.A.No.2 for grant of interim maintenance. This application was

opposed by the petitioner herein, who contended that he was

employed at J.P.Morgan Indian Private Limited and was earning

only a sum of Rs.4,71,000/- per annum. He claimed that the

respondent No.1 was educated and economically independent

and was financially stable to bear the expenses of the

respondent Nos.2 and 3. He also alleged that the respondent

No.1 was responsible for the marital discord and therefore, he

was not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent. He

also claimed that he had to look after his aged parents and

therefore, he was not in a position to pay the maintenance.

3. The trial Court after considering the material on

record and the admitted avocation of the petitioner as well as

the needs and necessities of Respondent Nos.2 & 3, passed an

order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of a sum of

Rs.6,000/- per month to each of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in

CRL.RP No. 1404 of 2018

terms of the order dated 22.08.2016. Being aggrieved by the

said order, the petitioner filed a Crl.A.No.1048/2016 before the

Appellate Court. The Appellate Court after considering the

material placed on record, rejected the appeal in terms of its

judgment dated 06.09.2018.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision

petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the respondent No.1 was financially independent and

therefore, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court ought to

have fastened the liability on the respondent No.1 to also meet

the expenses of maintenance of the respondent nos.2 and 3.

He submitted that the petitioner is residing at Chhattisgarh and

has to take care of his aged parents and therefore, the income

earned by him is just sufficient for himself as well as for the

maintenance of his aged parents.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court

have not ordered any maintenance to the respondent No.1 and

CRL.RP No. 1404 of 2018

the maintenance ordered is only in respect of respondent Nos.2

and 3. He contended that the maintenance awarded to

respondent Nos.2 and 3 is the bare minimum having regard to

the cost of living in a metropolitan city such as Bengaluru. He

therefore contended that the order of maintenance passed by

the trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court is just and

proper in the fact and circumstances of the case and hence, the

same may be confirmed.

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the

respondents.

8. The fact that the respondent No.1 is given in

marriage to the petitioner is not in dispute. The petitioner has

also not disputed that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the

children from the marriage. The petitioner is residing at

Chhattisgarh, while the respondents are residing at Bengaluru.

The petitioner admits that he is employed at Chhattisgarh,

while the respondent No.1 is also financially independent in

view of her avocation. The petitioner as well as the respondent

CRL.RP No. 1404 of 2018

No.1 owe a duty to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to maintain

them and meet their expenses and also to take care of all their

needs and necessities. The petitioner cannot deny or dispute

his liability to maintain the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

9. In that view of the matter, having regard to the

status of the parties as well as their financial capability and the

cost of living in a metropolis and the educational expenses,

the order passed by the trial Court awarding the interim

maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent Nos.2

and 3 cannot be termed to be excessive.

10. Consequently, this revision petition lacks merit and

the same is dismissed.

Any amount in deposit shall be released to the

respondent No.1 as the natural guardian of the respondent

Nos.2 and 3.

Sd/-

JUDGE NR/-