Karnataka High Court
Ramappa S/O Mallappa Walikar vs Smt.Vijaylaxmi W/O Ramappa Walikar on 12 February, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3172
CRL.P No. 101995 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101995 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
RAMAPPA S/O MALLAPPA WALIKAR,
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LINGAPUR SK, TQ. BILAGI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587116.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UMESH P. HAKKARAKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. VIJAYLAXMI W/O RAMAPPA WALIKAR,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. LINGAPUR SK, NOW AT KATARAKI,
TQ. BILAGI, DIST.BAGALKOTE-587116.
... RESPONDENT
MANJANNA
(RESPONDENT SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
E
Digitally signed
by MANJANNA E THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF
Date: 2024.02.15
11:49:42 +0530
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRIMINAL
MISCELLANEOUS NO.91/2010 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BILAGI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 21/07/2017 PASSED IN CRL.RP NO.67/2012 ON
THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BAGALKOT AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
23/07/2012 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
NO.91/2010 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BILAGI IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3172
CRL.P No. 101995 of 2019
ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging an order of
maintenance granted to the wife in a sum of Rs.2,500/- p.m.
2. This order was passed on 23.07.2012 and
confirmed in a revision on 21.07.2017.
3. The trial Court has noticed that the petitioner did
own one acre & eighteen guntas of land and it is also noticed
that the petitioner had stated that he was ready and willing to
relinquish or allot his share to the respondent - wife herein. It
has thereafter noticed that this would indicate that the
petitioner had sound financial status and yet the petitioner was
not maintaining his wife. The trial Court after taking into
consideration the minimum requirement for survival, has
proceeded to determine a sum Rs.2,500/- p.m. would be a
reasonable sum.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to
contend that the respondent has been staying apart for the
past nearly 30 years and there was no justifiable cause for her
to stay away from the petitioner. It is therefore contended that
the petitioner has no obligation to maintain the respondent -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3172
wife, since she had refused to cohabitate with the petitioner
without any justifiable cause.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Deb
Narayan Halder Vs. Anushree Halder (Smt)1 and also
judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Mammad Vs.
Rukhiya2, in support of his contention.
6. The very fact that the petitioner - husband
categorically undertook before the trial Court that he was ready
and willing to relinquish or allot his share to the respondent -
wife, by itself, is a clear admission on his part that he has an
obligation to maintain his wife. If the petitioner owns
agricultural properties, which he is ready to relinquish in favour
of his wife that by itself goes to show that he has a means for a
livelihood. The trial Court was therefore justified in awarding a
sum of Rs.2,500/- p.m. to the respondent - wife.
7. The reliance placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court and also the judgment of the Kerala High Court
cannot be of any consequence because the Supreme Court or
(2003) 11 SCC 303
1978 SCC Online Ker 74
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3172
the Kerala High Court were not dealing with a case in which the
husband had stated that he was ready and willing to relinquish
his share to his wife.
8. Having regard to the facts of this particular case,
the judgments relied is of no consequence, I find no merit in
this petition and the petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNP*/CT:BCK
