IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
i)ATEI') THIS THE'. 4'?" DAY OF MARCH 20
BEFORE
ma H0N'B1,12:
CR1M1NA1.P}3:1'1'1'1oN N«O.:3'_'I5:'1/12909:"
BETVVEEN:
Sri. M. N. Rangaiah
S/0 Narayanappa ' 4_
Aged about 44 years " 'M _
R/0 I..IG~58._ V
KHB COI0ny,_ A111:-'_ VA V _
Hassan I)i_svt5ric:t.%i.573.V20E1.V "
...PE'i'I'I'IONER
(By Sri H.'E7..A'11z'{{:1'{121, Pxd\?';) ~
AND}, %' V
1. U. 1<:.1p;;n"g. J _v
_ . _VW/0 M ,_ f\E...Ra11ig.;e1.i"a1.h
.. Aged 213301.: E.' A years.
_V KL':.1fI'i'N.I,,._1thE¥.I]
" M. _N.Ra11gaia}1
Agéc}.eibOL1t; 11 years
-. __ fninor
.. Repfesemed by his mother
x j Alid ne1t;ural ,s;'u2-u-diam
moiher 1*' respolldem".
Both are 2'es1'(:h1'1g at: Udevara Vi1Ez1ge
Kasaba Hobli, Saka.}€$}1p1,:ra. Taiuk
Hassan I.)ist'ric*.1'.m573 201.
...REZSP(j)NI")EN'1'S
(By Sri M. K. Ve1'1kal':a1'a.m e;m1'12-1. Adv.)
This criminal pet;iti0n filed under Seetiqn 482
Cr.PC praying to set aside the order paissed by th'e"--Addl.
Sessions Judge. Hassari in Crl.R.P. N0.100/2005'<«d;:.i'ved
21-2-2006 and (tonsequently to set asid<::\...t_1_1e'_"_"order
{Jared 8~ 12-2004 in Crl. Misc. Petition
by the Civil Judge (Jr. DV'l'l.] 82 JMFC. Sa.l{_e1v:leshp_L1r4._ '
This petition coming on
Court: made the following: ' " ' "
O R
The learned fdrtitheeev:p¢::'ri'i:iVoner has made
available ._Qrde;r0made by Elie trial
Court.
}t{earcl'.:he'le3;rrie»d Ceunsel for the parties.
__3. is the husband of the first
re's.;.j:()r:I._deri--t. andllféifher of the second resporadent. He
lia.d'12egl:e(.f'edv 'and refused to maintairi them. Therefore.
firsi. resperident for herself and also on behalf of the
mi1'm1"vvz,:i*1ild filed a maint.ehahee petitiori. T he petitiorier
l7..ehg'a'ged an advocate but did not eomest. the claim
=....;;$etiti0n. The learned Mag'ist':rate.. on appreei2iti(m of
evidence adduced by pemioner and the d(.)(.',tlFI1GI"il..'S
produced by petitioner and also t4ai<,i11g irate
.r"~ .
TE? . §:»:i"'\;'*-~O£:*'£'*- ,
3
e<.)11sicie1'a.tion the <.)cet.1pat.ic)i1 of pet:'t_ioner as C<.)11dt.1<~.t.0r
of KSRTC awa1'ded n1e1int,e1_121i'1ee. at. the ré-it;-& of
Rs.1,500/-- to first respondent and at t.h__ej_».rat"e»"":)f
Rs.},OOO/W to second respondezit. Af’t.e1f.Vt_}i2t1′..
fiied a Criniinal revision petition t;ei’t)i'”e tLhe.__Rexzjsdidqnal
Court after a period of 8 r11t)r1t.hs ‘fr_<)'r'1-1 the_.d~at.e' on {fvr1'ie1i
it should have been filed. Beibre the-Rvevisi<)Vr1aI Court
petitioner had prodtzeed d§().(I:U'I.'V_F1f3;1.'i'{,'Styififd 'kararu
sarnmathi patra' to c0_r1_t;e.r1Cl t11ét'tv,f'ii*-set 'iesporident for
herself and s::!Ls'QV Qi-1 :'beha§fs'eé()'i"i'd respondent, has
receij{rVeddVz"'rtpetrmsfifient'siimtinyddiof Rs.60.000/– in full and
final sAet.t1e1ne'n_t'..efj'her._rf1sintenance claim.
4. ‘ The _Ie*ari1.e_d Judge of the Revisionati Court,
o114§C0i1sidei’atiVQVr1 ofthe documeiits and the conduct; of
A “7\.€3′[.l”[i(il”1 €tI’ .l'”x’1 not roducinf the document before trial
1 d.i-srnissed the revision p€UU()f1 on 21.2.2006.
finetitioner filed RPFCNO. 121/2008 assuming
t’.ha.1: order in Cr1.R.}?.No.100/2005 was made by the
VF-Emily Court. which apparentiy is a wrorlgg asstimptiori.
£”\\; { _ _.–.s..§\x.’*–
4*
5. The ieamecl Cotmsel fol” the pet.it:i(.)ne1′ would
Submit. that. the Revisitmetl Court’ was not just;i.fi’et_:i in
1*eject.ing the ‘kararu sammathi patra’. .–’31’l*ie”
Counsei for petitioner has mat1Ve ava.il’zib}é’_”t.h’e
C€I’fifi(‘.E1t€ of petitioner to (tont~,ei1ci”ht.}’1at’7.t,he_”i’.:«1ke’-.hVEi:i1e
saiaty of petitioner is harti_1y’–~.Rs. 1 –_. t:h’e.i’
rate of maintenance__ granted the Cm;:’rt._’be,.35o\M is very
high.
6. The Aleariaeci'”CCi{i”(fe*dh’ for i1}€’.Wi;iI’Sf time before the revisicmal Court.
V .=Eveij1″-Qtiher§.t;’i~se, 21 sum of Rs.60,000/~ a1.1eged to have
H petitioner to the first. 1’€Sp()HdC1H in fuli
arid fi’T1ai’§€f.If1€Tfl€I’11. as maintenance to first and second
‘rsegpoiéderit, is unttoticionable. Therefore, the learned
” ‘Ju_ti’ge of the revisional Court: has rightly z’eject:ed the
f’ka1’ar1,t sammathi p2«1i:ra”. The pet,it’i.o1’1er has raisecl
‘ , Ai:lfi*iS’ pee: i1.i”o.n_
5
v2irioi.1e loans and rnade eeverzil i11vesi.inei’1ts in redi.1ee.
his take home salazy from L341/– to Re.1,?6*/1;2/ -.
The petitioner can very well reduce decii.1t%iiit’1ii.s~..1,o7pay
maintenance to respondents. As 1*eg;ii*<»i.s':"~th'e,: r«2:1t_e_ 'of.' 'V
rnainteenanee. the learned trigil
maintenance at the r:;ite_V
respondent. and at p the p.m.. to
second respondent,v opinion is;
not excessive .ha\ring”‘in’eg:ard’ the Skdary of petitioner
and the trial Judg,_{e having
1’egar’d” petitioner should have directed
petitioner to ‘:_jrn_ai’nt’enan(1e from the date of petition.
H()wf:§VC1’. u$t1_ei”i-ben’efii:” granted eeinnot be disturbed in
I do not find any merit in the
petition. nfieeordingiy, petition is dismissed.
S55;/m
§ED'{fig
rizis/rssh.
