IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGA§§{}I§EA4
DATED THIS THE 6'?" 'DAY 0:? Aueustlf; 4_
BE13'ORE~~~ 4 V
THE HON' BLE MRS. .JUs'r1¢I.yw:'ésN§}Ui.'A
CRIMINAL % V'
BETWEEN » .. V'
Karthanda Appaiah @ P'm'::)hu*.L :
Son of Uthappa, Aged 46 yeam 1
Resident of Echner Village' " "
Post, Ponnampé'£«N_é-2:1
Virajpct Ta111k.V V «
Kodagu A V. PETITIONER
(By Srgi; V
AND
Smt, @ Jubi
Wifqof K. Appaiah, Aged 43 years
* _ Hysddlgar vfiiage 3:.' 'Fast, Vizajpet Taluk
. Distzict RESPONDENT
{Bj.%__}%2f/ ‘Associates, Advocates)
Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P,C.
” :1’ » ”€3&1cV’Advocate for the paiitioncr praying that this Horfblc
may be plcascd to call for mcords in Criminal Revision
% .. Fetfizian No. 54/2005 dated 16.2.2906 on the file «mf the A]3~H()C
District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Virajpet and
cansequcnfly allow the Cr1.R.P. No. 54/2005 filed by the
petitioner herein, under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C. No.32/2005. ”
This Petition coming on for
made the following:
A
Heard the learned .t}1e so also
the learned Counsel for _
2. It is ?t1bt;1ieiii_Vdis;pui?e” ‘ preésent petitioner was the
respomie”nt–.vthe–.V»i\£é1g.f;iSh”?.te§ in proceedings launched
under Seetiprl maintenance not only for
hersekf bet £5: An interim awaxd of maintenance
caj:r1§:;tp_LA\beVvaw’é’fileci____&_tt.t}ae rate of Rs.10{)O/- and Rs. 500/– per
‘ ofwife and son respectively by an interim order
H the same came to be questioned in Cnmm’ ‘ al
Re§$is§.os:§,r Petition No. 54/ 2005. Before the First Revisional
tin factual consideration that the second petifioner in the
ggtaiéeedings under Section 125 Cr.P.(3., the son was looked after
‘ Vt by the husband, the await} of Rs.5GO/ – as interim maintenance
towards him came to be Withdmwn. So far as award of
maintenance of Rs. 10%] — in favour of me respondent/wife, the
3
Revisional Court eonfinaaed the said order without interfering
with the said award. Aggrieved by the same, tl::k:’–.»jp17ese1:1t
petition. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of
the pmceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.(3.
3. According to the 1eaIneg;{….C(_)unse.l”fc51″:
this is nothing short ofabuse of ivoi; gs ”
approached seeking mainterienzx coiieeeling fl’1’eA{.1’E?x€:.tVVo£3′ her
being in cam and custody of ~ fiot in dispute
that meihieiianee was an exparte order.
The “p1’derV’e.xfai.-Iiee’ questioned in the Sessions Court.
The vozfler an interlocutory order cammt be
V. qiviéeifigiiifid by vpetifion under Section 397 Cr.P. C. What
‘ Veéueld .__done under Section 39′? Cr.P.C., cannot be
“agei’}.ieve(:i by fiiing an application under Section 482
Cr; P course it can be done provicied them is abuse of
., ‘preeese of law by the Court. As a matter of fact, in the present
the Sessions Cimzrt; iiself has modified the award of
u “in¥;erine. maintenance. ‘fhereibxe, there is no question (sf
considering the award cf maintenance in favour of the son, Wha
is in custody of the husband.
maintenance in favour of the H
maintenance of the son is wi»thdIa\av§i2.A.:””E?he1cifoit:,’A. mat “of
the matter need not be gone: ‘ofzzce
There is no question of the party at
this stage, which has to Court.
5. F'<ii§\ V:2'2.:§)ove, the proceedings under
vbefidismissed. Accordingly, the
petiufin. = %
321/ –
JUDGE