IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA~~~«-- I
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OE MARcii"2'oé';0
BEFORE _ . _ g _
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs*1Tc_E A.'s.pAcHHA?jca_E pf;
CRIMINAL PET1T1oT'~:.Vi\:"o.8134-12009 '
BETWEEN: C' C 0
Shri Mohamrnadgous
Age: 57 years, Occ: Busine~ss:'(sNow' Nil) V' C
R/ o. I-Iukkeri, _Tc1:ig_I+I-1,1k1<3eri,: Dist.-.4BeIgaum:'
H _ _ _ PETITIONER
[By Sri. Vithal VTe'ii?;_V,_ Ady;..)_ 1
AND:
Smt._§:Ii.aila bi
C' _W/'0, CCMQ-hamgmadgous' Madarsha
Age: 57_vy'f:azT$;'~..OCC: Business {Now Nil)
_ R,' of 'H,ukkeri',..T'q; Hukkeri
"oisi:_._ gB¢'igau_m.,;'v"'
RESPONDENT
(Byi’Sri. V-Rajaishekar I3. Parappagol, Adv.)
ii iiii”~«.This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the
‘a._d’v–c–cate for the petitioner praying to set aside the judgment
V in; Criminal Revision Petition No.186/2009 dated 09.11.2009
….passed by the Fast Track Court, Hukkeri by confirming the
order passed in Criminal Misc. 3/2008 dated 18.05.2009
pending on the file of Civil Judge (JD) 85 JMFC, I-luikkeri by
allowing this petition with costs throughout.
Later, she filed Cri. Misc. No.3/2008 under
127 Cr.P.C requesting for alteration of_the–._ of:
maintenance by seeking enhanceniental’So%_also,:_.:
application in LA praying for interiimi.
Rs.5,000/– per month. The
The learned magistrate. heard and”aIlowe_d the
application granting interirri’ RS900/– per
month from ‘disposal of the main
petition. petitioner approached
for Se’ssi’o–ns”j;g ctmt Criminal Revision Petition
No.l86/2009; _’IlheRsaidbilrgexrision was dismissed on merits.
Aggriexred by theconcuirrent findings, this petition has been
challenging the orders of the Court below.
iI’.haifeilheard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and it also the respondent. The point that arise for my
A » consideration is:
A i. Whether the interim order of maintenance
awarding R3900/– pm to the wife is erroneous
or iliegal? Di’
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner : ‘
the petitioner is a Senior Citizen and~has no
the circumstances he submits that the order of.ma_i’riteniance.:
of Rs.900/- P.m by the Courteblfilow ilébiotlflc and r L’
illegal. It is aiso his s__ubmissgiQ_ri’..t_hat_V in apetitioh under
Section 127 Cr.P.C, noia’piplica.tio%n eeeieeiee filed for interim
maintenance. On. these.e’gro1:1:nds,ig ‘he for setting
aside the imp1l–gneti’i’ordei<s. 1' pi
Si', Per coinitra,utlieilecarned' Counsel for the respondent-
wife submictsll that lithe below have taken a just
deci,s_ion in granting the interim maintenance of Rs.900/-
lpimiiitill disposal of the petition under Section 12'?' Cr.P.C
the .iipetit.i_'0rier has not made out any grounds for
inte"rfere__nce.
_ 653.0 far as the question with regard to the
, imiai–nt’ainabi1ity of the application for interim maintenance is
=…c.0ir1cerned, it is relevant to note that wife had filed the
petition in the year 1978 and sought an order, wherein a
55/
meager amount of Rs.150/– p.rn was awarded
was depending on the said amount till the pet_itio–nV 8
in the year 2008 ie, after the
Though the learned Counsel for thepetitiioneriisuhniits
the wife has her own children “are earn_i_n’g,.iit
to note that there is equ”a’l” upon the
husband as well to pay’ though an
objection was trial Court, it
has been oveirriul-ed” taj3§fii§rig.__ivi:§y’toiviconsideration the rise in
the prices of since from the year 197 8
till the Court granted the interim
maintenance o’f~– per month, so that she could
survive _ti1i1_ the-disposal of the petition. Even considering the
ifi’1_()V1’i.(“;’_”,IiAV”c1:’l.i{_.t!8′, aniamount of Rs.150/– in the year 1978 and
Rs.9’G0/.{‘iri.the year 2008 in my considered opinion is not
.”~–V.is:.1ch arrenhancerrient which requires consideration in a
tdpetition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and I do not think that it
= possible for a woman to survive only on an amount of
V Rs.150/– per month, the maintenance payabie even after
/”
\
three decades. The learned Counsel for the .
placed reliance on the decision of this Cou’r’t”re_portedAV in
2003 AIR Kant HCR 1535 (in the:=»;as¢~of’Mug}appa”v’,[f-isn~z:,i_7
Muniyamma} wherein the hus’-‘iand wasan oldr.In’ai,i’1«Va_nd_}was
spending the evening hours life landincafpable of
maintaining himself wife lvvere well
placed and settled and….V:fl’ie filed with
malicious this Court held
that the wife cannot ‘clairn «finaintenance so as to cause
harassririentito aper_son ‘Who—is a senior citizen and is in the
evening ofll:.i4slli.fe.l’ _ V
{.71-f”As”–xcouldivvibeilseen from the cause title in this
,__’petition;”«theivlagegof the petitioner is mentioned as 5′?’ years,
so also tvheiagelof the wife is mentioned as 57 years. ln such
Qcircumstiances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a
Vsenior citizen and at the same time, the wife is also of the
same age, it cannot be said that the principle laid down in
the decision referred to above would be applied to the facts
on hand. Apart from this, there is no material placed on
slid
record to show that there was any malice on the
wife in filing the application under Section ll
she got an order of maintenance
Rs.15O / — per month and after, the lapseof abontli
she moved an application for al’terr1ation’and’e
In the circumstances, attributed against
the wife in seeking 4′ anvdiifenhancement of
maintenance. « a
consideration itlt:at”tl’ie husband is doing business
and hevhad aimouint of Rs. 6 lakhs for the marriage
lV._of C_hi.ld’ren also that he was holding sufficient
t_la’nds’.l. If-.theset_ circumstances are taken into consideration,
the,_.<l:;luantum.t_ maintenance that has been awarded on the
lgtinterim application cannot be said to be on the higher side.
it v So far as the maintainability is concerned, though
the learned Counsel submitted that the interim application
cannot be filed, it is relevant to note that even under Section
oéc
125 Cr.P.C there is no provision to graiat-.l_giVn:t_er§ini
maintenance. It is only the facts and circumstvangcesiwghicih" i'
will have to be looked into to
maintenance. Taking into consideration'–._tihe <iijltr1§:"'
parties a decision has to be takeiilias to
proper to award interi:11;~–1naints¢i¢'fianee. gthelabsence of any
provision when the interim.'mavitiltenanceiis"awarded under
Section 125 prohibition to
grant interiffii lappylication under Section
127 C1:',P.C.; the contention of the learned
Counsel for t the any substance.
VVApart”frorr1v this, the wife was getting only an
arr1cunt,_of’Rs1i.__50/– as maintenance since from the year
‘1’9g’i7.8.iand into the rising price and money value etc.,
~g the triat’i.Cot§rt has used its discretion in granting interim
ll’x’t.¥xnain_tenlance of Rs.900/- per month. In that View of the
. ivatteir and in the absence of any provision prohibiting the
it “grant of interim maintenance and taking into consideration
the circumstances in which the wife has been placed, E do
91;
not think that the Courts beiow have committediarly’ierrori of K V’
iliegaiity in passing the order of interiniiifiaiIiten:ar:1oe’.._
11. Hence E answer7t’h.e point’ in iiiegatiye fand , *
proceed to pass the following ordieirfl:
Petition is dismissed. ;_iNo Co5S?;$.__