High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Chidambar Fakirappa … vs Smt Kamala on 23 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Chidambar Fakirappa … vs Smt Kamala on 23 January, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
Cr1.R.P.638 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT or? KARNATAKAW 'V'  

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD 

DATEQ Tms mg 23% DAY<0E.JAN'pA_1§Y-2969'  V'

BEFGRE; '   ' 'T

THE HON'BLE MR.JU$§'1j£:E: v.;m<3AN%r¢:x*r»:»;:¢kkk 
CRiMINAL REVISION pm:~1o%;g: No}'633l. 2098

BETWEEN :

S/0 Falcirappa Eihaéantfiri, . .. .. .
A8861 about3.'{    'V   
Teacher,  V"  H ~
M€;ka1amarVa§ii,--::_BQai1h6ngaL 'L- '_    V

    ' 

Sri Chidambar FaVk2'rappé1..V8 i1:5tjé§v3é11:»:rfi,  Q '  . 

. . . Petitioner

(By Sri.  G--.._S'.  iévocate)

ANQ":

 

_   W/0 Chfidambar Bhajantri,
 _   years, Houscholé work,

.A  
$j 0  Bhajantri,
Aged about 7 yflars,

«. V' _ firiinor guaniian represented by
* V Mothcr ~--~ 13* respondent,

new resiriing at
T Navanagar Shed, Bagalkotg …Respom:i¢nts

(By Sri. P.N.gHosa%c, Advocate)

Cri.R.P.638 {if 2008

:2:

‘§’his cximinal revision petition is filed
397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the ad-igiscaizgaimiiiiiic ~ 4
petitioner praying that this Hon”bl£: $55 ” * ‘V

kindly call for the records in i7¢:v3;3i0_:z1′
No.56/2007 on the file of theV1earnVtd__ P3′–.r:v¢;si£;iiti’:g._iOfiice1i*,, F’ai§’i:.
Track Court«II, Bagalkot of

No.95/2005 01:1 the me of :he”ie¢m¢ci 1’~,igidifioa;1;a1 mm,

This petitiixti coniiiig day, the Court
made the

…. _.

iiéaxwéi both si:ies:,”‘

” 2′;=Tiiist mviéiéii petition, under Section 397 reafl with

of :21′ al Pxncedum Code, is directfid against

t]A::c:_:o:6x;,r’ by the courits below on the maintenance

mti’fié:ii__Ai”§}cd by the respondents —- Wife and daughter of the

gicitiiioner. The Triai Court allcnwed the maintenance petition

iiiad ordered R$.750/- to be paid to the in petitiormr and

R:-3.256/– to be paid to the 235 petitioner aver}! month by the

husbané, and this order, being ex parts order, was again

%

5..

Cr1.R.P.638 of 2008

:3:

taken to the revisional Court, Where at the I’€:€;{i14(‘j2§’«’v¥ZV””‘()éf>’~I.}}€f

mspondent wifzx, the rezvisionai Couri allovweé

enhancement of maintenance and ordered ” u

shall pay each 6f the two petitionéqzs

as maintenance.

3. Submission V ._Sh,%i iearncd
counsel fer the pctifioncr, was a mistake
on the part gi’ pfétitiflflgr ‘i.*::.”:fi£i;t.,_3r_._the wife to join him, the petifioner had to file

9116; seeking éivorce, which is aiso pending,

aw. thgmffiiie, taking into account an these factnrs, the

of maintenance awarded need to be reassessed,

j3u1az–1:,r, in the light of Section 125(4) cg’ Criminal

Code mentioning that no wife shall be entitied to

maintenancc, if, without sufictient reascn, she mfuses to

2*»

-I’

Cr1.R,?.638 (£2008

reassess the maintenance. in View of the pet:it§r)i1ef”._fiQt

takm g part in the procecéings before the ‘

of the View that subject to the conditjgn psfitisnexj K x

gays the maintenance amount awérdetd

the matter can be remitted to

6. in the result, I

The ;$c§it::§:;1Vis”””:1as}§§}i.4:

‘I’t;c the ccsurts below am set aids

and the flatter, iemitted to the Trial Court to

< rec=.§fisig{§r the of maintenance after afioxfiing an

petitioner- to have his say in the matter. At

that the petitioner shall pay to the res9ondcnts~

his §sr5fe3" daughter, the amount of mam' tenance at the

V' by the Trial Court cariier subject to reassessment

-‘ Trial Court.

if

9 /’

Crl.R.P.638 of 2008

:6:

Since the matter is being remitted at this

the Trial com shall ensure that the ma:¢;~T.;*§g–%..;1igg;;o;%,gd.T’ of

Within six months fmm the date c{f m£}:éi§:vt”‘af

both the parties shall co~o}»t)c_:*atcv”ir; this

petitioner, in paxtictllar, shafl’13;§”t*~give “£’r>. 1–‘ once V’

again.

Kms* ‘ V