Karnataka High Court
Sri B K Nataraj vs Jayanthi on 10 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
CRL.RP No. 1356 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1356 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI B K NATARAJ
S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT BAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BAGURU HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-34
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A.V, ADV. FOR
SRI. PRATHEEP K C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
JAYANTHI
Digitally signed W/O B K NATARAJ,
by SANDHYA S
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
Location: High
Court of R/AT GANGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
Karnataka
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-34
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.08.2016
PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., HASSAN DIST., SIT
AT CHANNARAYAPATNA IN CRL.R.P.NO.7/2015, PERUSE THE
SAME, ALLOW THE R.P.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
CRL.RP No. 1356 of 2016
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner has preferred this revision
petition against the order dated 17.08.2016 passed in
Crl.R.P.No.7/2015 by the Court of the 4th Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Hassan District (Sit at Channarayapatna)
(hereinafter referred to as 'Revision Court' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
revision petition are referred to as per their status and
rank before the Trial Court.
3. Respondent - Jayanthi, w/o. B.K. Nataraj has
filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Trial Court has
allowed the petition in part and awarded maintenance of
Rs.1,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by this order
passed by the Trial Court, the respondent-Jayanthi has
preferred revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.7/2015 before the
4th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (Sit
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
at Channarayapatna) and the same was partly allowed and
the learned Sessions Judge has enhanced the maintenance
for Rs.3,000/- per month in addition to Rs.1,000/- per
month awarded by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by
this order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the
revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel has preferred this revision
petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the
Revision court is not sustained either in law or facts. The
Trial Court has rightly held that the material as to the fact
that, the petitioner owns an agricultural land and also he
earns Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner is a coolie
and the respondent is doing tailoring and she has got
sufficient means to maintain herself. The petitioner has
old aged parents to look after and he is the resident of
Bhaktharahalli, Hassan District. Further, the petitioner is
working in Bengaluru and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
On all these grounds, he sought to allow this revision
petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
5. Despite service of notice to respondent, he
remained unrepresented.
6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of
records, the following points would arise for my
consideration:
i. Whether the revision petitioner/accused
has made out grounds to interfere with
the order dated 17.08.2016 passed in
ii. What order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the negative
Point No.2: as per final order
Regarding point No.1:
8. I have carefully examined the material placed
before the Court.
9. Respondent-Smt. Jayanthi has filed petition
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
Rs.5,000/- per month. The Trial Court has allowed the
petition in part and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/-
per month from the date of filing the petition.
10. To prove the case of revision petitioner, she is
examined herself as PW.1. 9 documents were marked as
Exs.P1 to P9. On closure of revision petitioner's side
evidence, the respondent has adduced oral evidence and
examined himself as RW.1 and 2 other were examined as
RW.2 and RW.3 and certified copy of judgment passed in
M.C.No.2732/2010 is marked as Ex.R1. Considering the
evidence produced by both parties, the Trial Court has
awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month
11. Learned Sessions Judge has assigned reasons
for enhancing of maintenance amount in paragraph Nos. 9
to 17 which reads as under:
"9. In the light of above prayer of wife and available
materials, following points fall for decision making of this
court;
Point No.1:- Whether court below properly
appreciated the minimum need of wife
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
for her maintenance and means of
husband to pay the maintenance of his
wife? If not what quantum of
maintenance wife is entitled?
Point No.2:- What order?
10. This court on appreciation of materials available
on record, give findings to the above points as follow;
Point No.1:-Negative and wife is entitled for monthly
maintenance of Rs.4,000/- from the date
of petition from her husband.
Point No.2:- As per final order on the following
reason;
REASON
Point 1 :- Relationship between parties to the lis on
hand as wife and husband is not in dispute. Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-
3-copy of judgment, decree, order sheet in MC.No.
No.2732/2010 on the file of 3rd Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bangalore show that marriage which
solemnized on 08.05.2006 between wife and husband was
dissolved on 12.07.2012. This fact is insignificant to decide
the instant revision and determine the prayer of wife for
maintenance. Even if presumes that wife is divorced, she is
entitled for maintenance from her husband. Indisputably,
husband has not made any provision for the maintenance of
his wife. Finding of court below that husband neglected and
refused welfare and maintenance of his wife is remained un-
assailed. Therefore, there is no serious dispute on the fact
that wife is entitled for maintenance from her husband.
Husband has not assailed the impugned order. Wife seeks
enhancement of maintenance awarded by court below.
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
11. It is trite that court of law has to consider need of
person, who seeks maintenance and means and capacity of
person, who is liable to pay maintenance. In the file on
hand, court of law has to appreciate need of wife and
capacity of husband to pay maintenance. Indisputably,
neither husband claims nor any material placed to show that
wife has means to lead her life. In the result, it is proper to
conclude that wife has no means to maintain herself. The
quantum of maintenance of wife to be appreciated on
consideration of standard of her living with the family of her
husband and also means and financial capacity of her
husband. Wife has alleged that her husband was earning
Rs.10,000/- as a employee in a private company. She
further claimed and alleged that her husband has additional
annual income of more than Rs.5,00,000/- from agriculture
and he has 10 acres of land consists 400 coconut trees and
500 arekanut trees stand in the name of his father.
12. Respondent admitted in his evidence as RW-1 to
the effect that "£Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è EzÁÝUÀ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ----
----- ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À AiÀÄÄ.¦.J¸ï. PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ. DUÀ
£À£ÀUÉ wAUÀ½UÉ 2,000/- ¸ÀA§¼À«vÀÄÛ." This admission show that husband
was working in a company at Bangalore. RW-3 Yogananda
has admitted in his cross-examination that "£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ ¸ÀºÀzÉÆåÃVUÀ¼ÁVzÉÝêÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ wAUÀ½UÉ
5,000/- ¸ÀA§¼À §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. FUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, wAUÀ½UÉ
10,000/- ¸ÀA¨É¼À ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÆzÀ®Ä JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ¤UÉ MAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÆ
PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ vÉUÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀ½ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÁÝgÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À §½ MAzÀÄ D¥Éà DmÉÆÃ
EvÀÄÛ, FUÀ ¸Á® PÀlÖzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ CzÀ£ÀÄ d¦Û ¥Àr¹zÁÝgÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ d¦Û
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
¥Àr¹zÁÝgÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À PÀÄgÀħgÀ ºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÞ ªÀÄ£É
¨ÁrUÉ 2,500-/ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è wAUÀ½UÉ 4000/- RZÁðUÀÄvÀÛzÉ".
13. From the above admission of husband and his
colleague, it is clear that husband was working in a company
and he was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- since 6 years.
Where as husband claims that he was drawing salary of
Rs.2,000/- per month. Evidence of RW-3 clearly shows that
husband is hiding the truth and telling false on the quantum
of his salary. Husband also denied that he did not possess
any motorbike and Appe auto-rickshaw. The evidence of
RW-3 clearly shows that husband possessed ape goods auto.
When RW-3 admittedly earns Rs.10,000/- with having same
equal experience, husband could definitely earn more than
Rs.10,000/- as an employee at any suitable company.
Husband further claims that he has no agriculture income
and all the lands stand in the name of his father. Ex.R-1
evidences that husband was resident of Kurbarahalli at
Bangalore even as on 12.07.2012, on which day, his
marriage with wife was dissolved. Wife laid petition claiming
maintenance on 01.10.2011. On relevant date husband was
employed and settled at Bangalore. Husband in his evidence
before court below claimed that he is resident of
Baktharahalli village. Husband while denying possession of
coconut garden land and arekanut land claims that his
family has three acres of land in the name of his father and
his father has six children. RW-2- Manjunath has given
evidence to the effect that "JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ ¨ÀsPÀÛgÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è
EzÀÄÞ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ£É. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ 3-4 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄ¼É D±ÀæAiÀÄ
d«ÄãÀÄ EzÉ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 50 vÉAV£ÀªÀÄgÀUÀ½ªÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À¤UÉ ªÀµÀðPÉÌ 5 ®PÀë
gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä DzÁAiÀÄ E®è. fêÀ£ÁA±ÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃPÁUÀĪÀµÀÄÖ DzÁAiÀÄ EzÉ. RW-3 has
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
further stated in his evidence to the effect that "JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ¤UÉ
¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖAvÉ 20 CrPÉ ªÀÄgÀUÀ½ªÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À d«ÄäUÉ MAzÀÄ PÉƼÀªÉ
¨Á«¬ÄzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è ¤ÃgÀÄ §gÀÄwÛ®è"
14. Above evidence of RW-2 clearly shows that
husband has coconut and arekanut garden land and
agriculture land. Although husband suppressed the true fact
on his actual source of income, but evidence of his witnesses
namely Manjuanth and Yogananda clearly shows that
husband has agriculture income. No doubt wife has not
placed any material to show that her husband is still working
as an employee at a particular company. Nevertheless
husband has capacity to earn more than 10,000/- as an
employee at any private company at cities or an agriculturist
in his village. Materials available on record abundantly show
that husband has multiple source of income and his capacity
to earn is more than Rs.10,000/- per month.
15. Indisputably, parents of husband have other
children and they have agriculture land. It is not the claim of
husband that his parents are depending on his income. Out
of monthly total income of Rs.10,000/- husband can
definitely contribute more than 40% of his income to his
wife. If on consideration of above financial capacity of
husband need of the wife is considered, it is to be held that
wife is needed at Rs.4,000/- to lead her life. This quantum
of monthly maintenance is payable by her husband. In the
result wife deserves for enhancement of her maintenance to
an extent of Rs.4,000/- per month.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
16. Hon'ble court below without appreciation of need
of wife and financial and economical means and capacity of
husband determined the quantum of maintenance at
Rs.1,000/- per month. Present days even an unskilled
healthy man get more than Rs.300/- per day as a daily
wage. Viewed from any angle, capacity of husband to be
taken as it is more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Hon'ble
court below without proper appreciation of above discussed
materials and without any logic has awarded meager
amount of Rs.1,000/- as a maintenance infavour of wife.
Therefore, impugned order of court below is incorrect,
unscientific, arbitrary and against to the materials available
on record. In the result, impugned order needs modification
and quantum of maintenance awarded infavour of wife to be
enhanced up to Rs.4,000/- per month from Rs.1,000/-.
Accordingly, this point is answered.
17. Point No.2:- In the light of above finding,
revision Petition on hand to be allowed. Accordingly, this
court proceeds to pass following order;
ORDER
Revision petition is allowed.
Impugned order of court below dtd.30.05.2014 passed in
C.Mis.No. 378/11 on the file of 2nd Additional Civil Judge and
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Channarayapatna is modified as
noted below;
Wife is entitled for enhancement of monthly maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- and she is entitled for monthly maintenance of
Rs.4,000/- from the date of her petition from her husband.
Husband shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/-
infavour of his wife from the date of petition.
Send back LCR along with copy of this order to lower court."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1246
12. On re-appreciation/ re-consideration/ re-
examination of the entire evidence on record, I do not find
any legal infirmities/illegalities in the order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge. Hence, I answer point No.1 in
negative.
Regarding point No.2:
13. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition dismissed.
ii. Registry is directed to send copy of this
order along with records to the concerned
Courts.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSD
