Karnataka High Court
Smt.Kusuma W./O. Shivayogi ... vs Shivayogi S/O. Veerabhadrappa ... on 29 May, 2023
Bench: V.Srishanandapresided Byvsnj
-1-
CRL.P No. 100317 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100317 OF 2019 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KUSUMA W/O. SHIVAYOGI KARAGUPPI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BIDI, TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
NOW AT JOSHI ONI,
SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. KUMARI KAVITHA D/O. SHIVAYOGI KARAGUPPI,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: BIDI, TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
NOW AT JOSHI ONI,
SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
3. KUMAR KARTIK S/O. SHIVAYOGI KARAGUPPI,
KATTIMANI AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: BIDI, TQ: KHANAPUR,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR DIST: BELAGAVI.
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI NOW AT JOSHI ONI,
Date: 2023.06.01
11:12:41 -0700 SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4. KUMARI SUGANDA D/O. SHIVAYOGI KARAGUPPI,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: BIDI, TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
NOW AT JOSHI ONI,
SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
5. KUMARI DIVYA D/O. SHIVAYOGI KARAGUPPI,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
-2-
CRL.P No. 100317 of 2019
OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BIDI,
TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
NOW AT JOSHI ONI,
SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
NOTE: PETITIONER NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. KUSUMA, W/O. SHIVAYOGI KARAGUPPI,
1ST PETITIONER HEREIN.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHIVAYOGI S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA KARAGUPPI,
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAVANT GALLI BIDI,
TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. L.M. KURAHATTI,
SRI. S.K. HIREMATH, AND
SRI. ANAND DESAI, ADVOCATES)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.73/2014 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE JMFC
COURT, SAVANUR SITTING AT SHIGGAON AND WHICH ORDER
CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2019 IN
CRL.RP.NO.342/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI AND ALLOW THE
CRL.MISC.NO.73/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE JMFC
COURT, SAVANUR SITTING AT SHIGGAON AS PRAYED U/S
125(1) OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.P No. 100317 of 2019
ORDER
Heard Sri.Vidyashankar G Dalwai, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Sri.L.M.Kurahatti, learned counsel for
the respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:
"To set aside the order dated 12.07.2017 in
Crl.Misc.No.73/2014 passed by the Civil Judge
JMFC Court, Savanur Sitting at Shiggaon and
which order confirmed by the order dated
02.01.2019 in Crl.RP.No.342/2017 passed by the
Court of Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Haveri and
allow the Crl.Misc.No.73/2014 on the file of the
Civil Judge JMFC Court, Savanur Sitting at
Shiggaon as prayed U/s 125(1) of Cr.p.c."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 125
of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.73/2014 seeking grant of
maintenance as the respondent herein neglected to
maintain them. The said petition on contest came to be
dismissed by order dated 12.07.2017. Being aggrieved by
the said order, the petitioners herein filed a revision
petition in Crl.R.P.No.342/2017 on the file of the Principal
CRL.P No. 100317 of 2019
District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. The said revision
petition also on contest came to be dismissed on
02.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
are before this Court.
4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
Sri.Vidyashankar G Dalwai, learned counsel for the
petitioners contended that without there being a valid
reason the petitioners have been neglected by the
respondent herein and therefore both the Courts have
erred in law in dismissing the petition for maintenance and
sought for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, Sri.L.M.Kurahatti, learned counsel
for the respondent supported the impugned judgments
and also filed a memo with the identity card issued by the
Government whereby it is seen that the respondent is
receiving State Government Pension which is payable to
the physically challenged persons periodically.
CRL.P No. 100317 of 2019
6. He also contended that despite the best efforts
made by the respondent, the first petitioner did not join
the matrimonial home nor she co-operated for dissolution
of marriage.
7. He also contended that on the ill-advice of the
first petitioner, other petitioners are staying away from the
respondent and he is willing to take back the petitioners
and maintain them properly with the available resources
and sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Perused the material on record meticulously in
view of the rival contentions of the parties.
9. On such perusal, it is seen that the material
evidence on record placed before the learned Magistrate at
Savanur, Sitting at Shiggaon, the first petitioner has
admitted that the marriage of the first petitioner with the
respondent took place by spending the amount by
respondent. During her cross-examination, first petitioner
has admitted that there is no harassment meted out to the
CRL.P No. 100317 of 2019
petitioners by the respondent. However, she has
voluntarily stated that the respondent is in the habit of
consuming alcohol and not properly taking care of the
petitioners.
10. Further, the respondent has filed a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights before the Court at Khanapur.
On the request of the petitioners, it got transferred to
Haveri. It is admitted evidence on record that the first
petitioner did not co-operate either for restitution of
conjugal rights or for dissolution of marriage when the
matter was pending before the Court at Haveri.
11. These aspects of the matter has been rightly
appreciated by the learned trial Magistrate and has
recorded a categorical finding that the respondent did not
desert the petitioners and the petitioners on their volition
are staying away from the respondent and therefore
rejected the claim for maintenance.
CRL.P No. 100317 of 2019
12. The Revisional Court on re-appreciation of the
material on record has recorded a categorical finding that
there is no proper income for the respondent and he
himself is living based on the Government pension scheme
payable to the physically challenged persons periodically
and also noted that the petitioners have not made out a
case for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. and rejected the revision petition.
13. On re-appreciation of the material on record
with the limited jurisdiction of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this
Court is of the considered opinion that despite best efforts
made by the respondent, the petitioners have failed to join
the respondent nor the petitioners are taking the matter to
a logical end on the matrimonial side.
14. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial
Magistrate and confirmed by the Revisional Court that the
petitioners have not made out a case for grant of
maintenance cannot be interfered by this Court in this
petition.
CRL.P No. 100317 of 2019
15. However, this shall not preclude the petitioners
from obtaining necessary orders by filing appropriate
proceedings for redressal of their grievances in accordance
with law.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the
following order is passed:
ORDER
The criminal petition is dismissed with the
observations and liberty as referred supra.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
