Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1139 (KAR)

Anusha M. @ Sonali M. v. K. C. Ramesh

2017-08-11

RATHNAKALA

body2017
ORDER : Rathnakala, J. Parties to these petitions are the married couple, married on 4.6.2015 as per customs. 2. The wife has filed Crl. R.P. No. 609/2017 aggrieved by the order of the lower Appellate Court whereby the interim order of maintenance passed by the Trial Court was set aside. The matter was remanded to reconsider the application filed by her for interim relief. A further direction was given in the remand order that the husband shall pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000 per month to the wife and child till further orders passed by the Magistrate. 3. The husband has preferred Crl. R.P. No. 640/17 aggrieved by the direction issued by the lower Appellate Court to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000 per month, as excessive. 4. The facts not in dispute between the parties is, wife filed a petition under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') and sought ex parte interim order. However, ex parte order was not passed. Notice was issued to the husband. He contested the petition and filed his objection statement to the interim application, so also the main petition. On that, the trial commenced and the wife's evidence was recorded, she was cross-examined by the defence. At that stage, the learned Magistrate took the interim application for consideration and ordered interim monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month from the date of petition till disposal of the case. It is a fact that the order of maintenance was passed though in the presence of the husband, it was without the benefit of the rebuttal evidence. 5. The grievance of the husband is, he was not given opportunity to fully cross-examine the wife while she was in the witness box for which learned Counsel for the wife objects that because of the non-cooperation of the husband, the application for interim maintenance was taken into consideration. 6. However, to do complete justice in the matter, both Counsel have agreed to co-operate with the Trial Court for speedy disposal of the case within one month. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Nataraja for the wife has undertaken not to precipitate the matter for another one month. 8. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the lower Appellate Court is set aside. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26.8.2017. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Nataraja for the wife has undertaken not to precipitate the matter for another one month. 8. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the lower Appellate Court is set aside. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26.8.2017. The trial shall proceed with by recording of the respondent's evidence. The Trial Court shall dispose of the main petition within 60 days from the date of communication of this order. The interim order passed by the Trial Court shall merge with the final outcome of the petition. The respondent/husband is directed to pay Rs. 50,000 for the subsistence of his wife and child within one month from today which amount shall be adjusted at the final adjudication.