Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1641 (KAR)

Tulasappa v. Indravva

2019-07-10

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband being aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Criminal Revision Petition No.54/2015, whereunder the order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the Principal JMFC, Badami in Criminal Misc. No.304/2012 granting the maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month has been partly allowed and the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- has been granted. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The facts leading to the case for filing the petition before the trial Court is that, the respondent-wife is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. They led marital life for a period of ten years. As the petitioner got employment in the military after marriage, he joined the services. But thereafter he started ill-treating and harassing the petitioner for bringing the dowry. Earlier the respondent-wife filed Criminal Misc.No.258/2011 claiming maintenance. The said matter was ended in compromise. Thereafter, again the petitioner did not improve his conduct and neglected and refused to maintain the respondent. As such, she filed Criminal Misc.No.304/2012 claiming maintenance. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that the learned Magistrate and the learned District Judge have not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case that, during the course of cross-examination, PW1 and PW2 have admitted that the respondent herself has deserted the petitioner by staying out from the matrimonial house. The said aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Court below. It is his further contention that the petitioner was ever ready and willing to take her back. She herself was separately residing. It is his further submission that the learned Magistrate has not given sufficient opportunity to defend the case of the petitioner by leading his evidence as he is working as Army Jawan in the Military and under these circumstances, the matter may be remitted back to the Court below for giving full opportunity to the petitioner. It is his further contention that the petitioner has to maintain his parents and he is getting a salary of Rs.29,000/- p.m. and after deduction his gross salary is Rs.20,000/- p.m. and hence the maintenance awarded to the extent of Rs.5,000/- is on the higher side and the same requires to be reduced. It is his further contention that the petitioner has to maintain his parents and he is getting a salary of Rs.29,000/- p.m. and after deduction his gross salary is Rs.20,000/- p.m. and hence the maintenance awarded to the extent of Rs.5,000/- is on the higher side and the same requires to be reduced. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife vehemently argued and submitted that, earlier the respondent filed Crl.Misc.No.258/2011 and the said matter was compromised and in the said compromise, the petitioner agreed that he will not give any ill-treatment to the respondent in future and as such, the matter was compromised. But thereafter again he continued his old attitude and he started illtreating and neglected her without providing any maintenance and as such, the present petition came to be filed. It is his further submission that, the petitioner/husband has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the same came to be dismissed. Subsequently, he has filed a divorce petition and that also came to be dismissed. All these attitudes clearly goes to show that he was never intending to take her back and has not provided any maintenance. It is his further submission that the Court below after considering the material on record and the salary of the petitioner/husband awarded the maintenance of Rs.7,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred the criminal revision petition and the criminal revision petition was partly allowed and an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been granted and as such, the amount is reasonable which is required for the purpose of maintenance of respondent wife. The petitioner has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the orders of the both the Courts below and the same may be confirmed by dismissing the present petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. As could be seen from the records, in order to prove the case of the respondent-wife, she got herself examined as PW1 and also got examined two more witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. It is not in dispute that earlier criminal Misc. 7. As could be seen from the records, in order to prove the case of the respondent-wife, she got herself examined as PW1 and also got examined two more witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. It is not in dispute that earlier criminal Misc. No.258/2011 was filed by the respondent-wife and the same was ended in compromise and the records shows that the petitioner-husband agreed in the said compromise petition that he will not give ill-treatment to the petitioner in future. That itself clearly goes to show that earlier also there was ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to the respondent-wife by the petitioner-husband. It is her specific contention that the petitioner-husband has started ill-treating and harassing her for demand of dowry and he has neglected her to maintain when she was staying in her parental house. The evidence of PW3 is corroborated with the evidence of PW1. Though in the compromise she has agreed to reside along with the petitioner-husband, but subsequently he has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights as well as petition for divorce and the same were came to be dismissed. It is clearly goes to show that the petitioner-husband was not interested to take her back and to lead the marital life. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that PW1 and PW2 have admitted in the cross-examination regarding the fact that, in the compromise she has agreed to reside with the petitioner-husband and she is residing separately in the parental house. But if the entire records are perused in its entirety, only because of the ill-treatment and harassment caused by the petitioner-husband that she is residing in the parental house and even it is admitted fact that divorce petition has also been filed by the petitioner-husband. When they filed the divorce petition, the contention of the petitioner-husband that he was willing to join with the respondent-wife and is ready to take her back, cannot be believed. 9. Be that as it may. Even as could be seen from the records, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner-husband is working in the Military and he is drawing a salary of Rs.29,000/- pm. 9. Be that as it may. Even as could be seen from the records, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner-husband is working in the Military and he is drawing a salary of Rs.29,000/- pm. In this behalf, Ex.P4 Salary certificate has been also produced and after deduction he is getting a net salary of Rs.24,000/- p.m. and he is also having landed properties and other income. By keeping in view the said facts and circumstances, the Revisional Court has reduced the maintenance only to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of petition. I feel that the amount granted by the learned District Judge appears to be just and proper by taking into consideration all the material which has been placed on record. There is no such evidence to discard the evidence of PW1 and to show that she herself has refused to live along with the petitioner-husband. 10. Looking form any angle the petitioner has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The present revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.