Karnataka High Court
Sri Theertha Roopa vs Smt Shivamma on 29 March, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. No. 1016 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI THEERTHA ROOPA
S/O LATE MOGANNA GOWDA
AGED 44 YEARS
R/AT KUPPE VILLAGE
PALYA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 573 213.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally
1. SMT. SHIVAMMA
signed by B W/O THEERTHA ROOPA
A KRISHNA
KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS.
Location:
High Court 2. SRI VISHWAS
of Karnataka
S/O THEERTHA ROOPA
AGED 17 YEARS 9 MONTHS
3. SRI SATHYANARAYANA
S/O THEERTHA ROOPA
AGED 14 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER (SMT. SHIVAMMA).
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION
NO.476, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE
HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN
PIN CODE - 573 217.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV.)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397. CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HASSAN IN CRL.MISC.NO.316/2010 DATED 27.04.2013 AND
MODIFIED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., HASSAN IN
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2015
CRL.A.NO.105/2013 DATED 29.08.2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY,
DISMISSED THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS NOT
MENTIONABLE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DOSPOSAL, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC is
filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2013 passed by the II
Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan, in Crl.Misc.No.316/2010 and
the judgment dated 29.08.2015 passed by the II Addl. District
& Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.No.105/2013.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also
perused the material available on record.
3. Facts leading to filing of this petition narrated briefly
are, the respondents are the wife and children of the petitioner.
They had filed Crl.Misc.No.316/2010 before the Trial Court
under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act') claiming maintenance
of Rs.5,000/- per month from the petitioner. The petitioner had
filed detailed statement of objections to the said claim made by
the respondents. To substantiate her case, respondent no.1
had examined herself as PW-1 before the Trial Court and had
produced five documents as Exs.P-1 to P-5. The petitioner had
CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2015
examined himself as RW-1, however, he had not produced any
documents in support of his defence. The Trial Court by order
dated 27.04.2013 had partly allowed the petition filed by the
respondents and directed the petitioner to pay monthly
maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- to the respondents from the
date of the order. The appeal filed against the said order dated
27.04.2013 under Section 29 of the Act before the Appellate
Court in Crl.A.No.105/2013 was partly allowed and the
Appellate Court modified the order of maintenance and directed
the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- to the respondents
per month from the date of the petition. Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had purchased a property in the name of respondent
no.1 in the year 2005 itself in lieu of her maintenance. He
submits that the said property was subsequently sold by
respondent no.1 for a valid consideration of Rs.6,53,000/-, and
thereafter, she has filed the petition under Section 12 of the Act
claiming maintenance from the petitioner. He submits that the
petitioner is required to maintain his old aged mother who is
CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2015
suffering from various ailments and is required to spend
substantial amount towards her medical expenses.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed
on behalf of the petitioner.
6. The material on record would go to show that the
petitioner is an employee in the Postal Department and his
salary certificate - Ex.P-1 which is of the year 2010 would go to
show that he had monthly income of Rs.15,000/- per month in
the year 2010 itself. Exs.P-2 to P-4 are the record of rights of
the agricultural lands which stands in the name of the
petitioner. Ex.P-5 is the copy of the rent agreement which
would go to show that the petitioner has a rental income.
7. Though the petitioner has contended before this Court
that he had purchased a property in the name of respondent
no.1 in lieu of her maintenance, such a defence was not put
forward by him before the courts below. Petitioner has
produced the copy of the sale deed dated 01.04.2005 which
stands in the name of respondent no.1, but the convenants of
the said document does not disclose that the property
purchased under the said document is in lieu of the
CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2015
maintenance of respondent no.1 who is the purchaser under
the said document.
8. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1
is employed and she has got independent source of income to
maintain herself and respondent nos.2 & 3. Respondent nos.2 &
3 who are the children of the petitioner are admittedly being
taken care by respondent no.1.
9. Considering all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the
courts below have directed the petitioner to pay monthly
maintenance to the respondents. In my considered view, the
impugned orders passed by the courts below directing the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- per month to the
respondents towards maintenance does not suffer from any
illegality or irregularity which calls for interference by this
Court. The revision petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,
the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
