Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Sri M N Rangaiah vs Smt U P Kalapana on 4 March, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.154 seconds.