Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2565 Kant
Judgement Date : 24 May, 2023
-1-
CRL.RP No. 200070 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200070 OF 2023 (397-)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHIBOOB
S/O MOHAMMED YUSUF DHAKANI AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS, OCC. KSRTC MECHANIC R/O J.M. ROAD,
NEAR ASTAPHEL BUNGALOW VIJAYAPUR,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR ASHOK KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARVEEJBANU AND ANR
D/O GAIBUSAB KOTNAL
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK R/O
MANAGULI AGASI VIJAYAPURA DIST. VIJAYAPURA-
586101.
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE
Location: High 2. KUMARI BIBI ASMA D/O MAHIBOOB DHAKANI
Court of
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT R/O
MANAGULI AGASI VIJAYAPURA DIST. VIJAYAPURA-
586101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S 397(1) AND 401 OF CR.P.C BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A) ALLOW THE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND CALL FOR THE
RECORDS.B) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
27.01.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19/2021 BY THE
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA
-2-
CRL.RP No. 200070 of 2023
AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.05.2021 PASSED BY I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
VIJAYAPURA IN CRL. MISC.NO. 55/2014.C) AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS CRL.MISC.NO.
55/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.D) PASS SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition under Sections 397(1) and 401 of Cr.PC is filed challenging the order dated 12.5.2021 passed by the 1st Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura in Crl.Misc.No.55/2014, by which, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent towards maintenance.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner's contention is that the Family Court concerned had already directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each of the respondents herein and as such, the respondents are not entitled for maintenance under Section 12 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
4. The Trial Court taking into account the admission of the petitioner that he is drawing a sum of Rs.39,000/- p.m. has granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the respondent No.2, which in my view, cannot be said to be exorbitant.
CRL.RP No. 200070 of 2023
Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Criminal revision petition is dismissed. Pending I.A. does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!