Karnataka High Court
Sri. Basavaraj S/O Mahadevayy ... vs Smt. Sangeeta W/O. Basavaraj ... on 8 January, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:355
CRL.RP No. 100286 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100286 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI BASAVARAJ
S/O. MAHADEVAYYA VIRAKTAMATH,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANABARATTI VILLAGE,
C/O. BUDIHAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL-591121.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SANGEETA
W/O. BASAVARAJ VIRAKTAMATH,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. KUMARI RAJASHREE
D/O. BASAVARAJ VIRAKTAMATH,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Digitally
BOTH ARE R/O. HANABARATTI VILLAGE,
signed by
VIJAYALAXMI
VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT
TQ. BAILHONGAL, C/O. BUDIHAL,
M BHAT Date:
2024.01.10
16:27:02
DIST. BELAGAVI-591121.
+0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8/2020 DATED. 07.09.2021,
PASSED BY THE V ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI, AND THEIR BY SET ASIDE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL
MISC NO. 508/2015 DATED. 07.12.2019 PASSED BY ADDL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BAILHONGAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:355
CRL.RP No. 100286 of 2021
ORDER
1. This revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401
of Cr.P.C., is filed assailing the order dated 07.12.2019
passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Bailhongal in Crl.Misc.(D.V.Act).No.508/2015 and the
judgment and order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the
Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgavi,
in Crl.A.No.8/2020.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Facts leading to filing of this revision petition as
revealed from the records are, the marriage of the
petitioner with the first respondent herein was solemnized
in the year 1996 at Hanabaratti village, Bailhongal taluk as
per the customs that prevailed in their community. From
the wedlock, the couple have a daughter who is arraigned
as respondent no.2 in the present petition. The
relationship between the couple got strained subsequently.
Therefore, the first respondent along with respondent no.2
has deserted the company of the petitioner and had taken
NC: 2024:KHC-D:355
shelter in her parents house.
Crl.Misc.(D.V.Act).No.508/2015 was filed by the
respondents herein before the jurisdictional Court of
Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking several reliefs.
The prayer made in the application was opposed by the
petitioner herein by filing statement of objection.
4. Before the trial Court, the first respondent had
examined herself as PW1 and in support of her case, she
had marked Exs.P1 to P6 which are the record of rights of
the agricultural property belonging to the petitioner
herein. In support of his case the petitioner herein had
examined himself as RW1 and another witness was
examined as RW2. He also got two documents marked in
support of his case as Exs.R1 and R2. The trial Court vide
order dated 07.12.2019, partly allowed the petition filed
by the respondents herein. The said order was challenged
by the petitioner herein in Crl.A.no.8/2020 before the
Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:355
Belgaum, which was dismissed on 07.09.2021. Therefore,
he is before this court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Courts below were not justified in awarding
maintenance to the respondents. The evidence placed
before the Court was not properly appreciated. The
respondents have voluntarily left the company of the
petitioner and therefore, they are not entitled for
maintenance.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents has argued in support of the impugned
orders. He submits that after the petitioner had
contracted the second marriage, the first respondent had
left his company. He owns 20 acres of agricultural land
and the same is evident from Exs.P1 to P6. Accordingly,
prays to dismiss the petition.
7. The relationship between the parties is not in
dispute. The first respondent herein is the wife of the
petitioner and the second respondent is the daughter of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:355
the couple. The petitioner has a duty and responsibility to
take care of the respondents and provide them proper
maintenance. Exs.P1 to P6 are the records of right in
respect of agricultural properties which stand in the joint
name of petitioner and his family members. After the first
respondent had started residing with her parents,
undisputedly, the petitioner has not provided any
maintenance to her and to the daughter born to them.
Section 20 of the Act provides for granting maintenance to
the estranged wife or aggrieved person. The trial Court
after taking into consideration the oral and documentary
evidence available on record has awarded maintenance
amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent no.1 and
Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2. The said
amount cannot be said to be on the higher side taking into
consideration the present cost of living. The Courts below
have concurrently held against the petitioner and I do not
find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the Courts below wherein only a sum of
Rs.2,500/- p.m. has been awarded to respondent no.1 and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:355
Rs.1,500/- to respondent no.2. Therefore, I am of the
view that the petition lacks merits. Accordingly, the same
is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VMB
