Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 483 (KAR)

RAMSAGAR @ ASHOKA v. RAJESHWARI

2020-02-18

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
ORDER : This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’ for short) assailing the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-VI, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short) in Crl.Mis.No.115/2015 and the same was confirmed by the LX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’ for short) in Criminal Appeal No.425/2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 claim to be wife and daughter of the petitioner vide petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act’ for short) before the trial Court claiming for maintenance and compensation from the petitioner. After issuance of notice, the petitioner husband was placed exparte before the trial Court. In order to prove her case, respondent No.1wife examined herself as PW.1 and got marked eight documents as per Exs.P1 to P8. After hearing arguments, the trial Court passed the impugned order. The same was challenged by the petitioner-husband before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.425/2016 which came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioner-husband filed the present petition before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order under revision is not sustainable since there was no notice served on the petitioner. The address shown by the respondent is a vacant site, as per the shara of Postal Department. The petitioner is working as a coolie under NREGP in Kerodi Grama Panchayath in Sagar where there is no income at all and prays to remand the matter for giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. Therefore, he prayed to allow the revision petition. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents remained absent. 7. A perusal of the records disclose that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is not in dispute. The birth of the child i.e. respondent No.2 namely Charita R. Sagar was from their wed lock is also not in dispute. It is also not disputed that both are living separately. 7. A perusal of the records disclose that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is not in dispute. The birth of the child i.e. respondent No.2 namely Charita R. Sagar was from their wed lock is also not in dispute. It is also not disputed that both are living separately. The respondent No.1 filed a petition before the trial Court seeking maintenance and also for compensation. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the address shown as Bangalore address is not at all a house, but it is only a vacant site. However, the petitioner is residing at Sagara Taluk, Shivamogga District and he does not have any avocation or income. The documents marked before the trial Court are Ex.P1 marriage invitation card, Ex.P2 delivery card, Exs.P3 & P4 are discharge summary and medical bills of Respondent No.2. Exs.P6 & P7 are the School fees receipts for having admitted respondent No.2 to the school wherein respondent No.1 has paid the School fees in favour of respondent No.2. The petitioner is having a TATA ACE Light Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA159238, which stands in his name. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle is not in his name, but Ex.P8 shows that the name of the petitioner as the chassis owner. 8. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the medical expenditure of the Hospital has been borne by the petitioner. But he has not produced any such document either before the trial Court or before this Court. Though the trial Court passed the ex-parte order but not after completion of enquiry under Section 28 of the ‘DV Act’, the ‘DV Act’ also empowers the trial Court to grant ad interim maintenance under Section 23(2) of the said Act. Such being the case, merely one of the parties viz., the respondent or petitioner not appeared and contested the matter, that itself is not a ground to set aside the orders of the both the Courts below and remand the matter. However, the trial Court order shows that Rs.2,00,000/has been awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/to respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/to respondent No.2 as maintenance. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as a coolie under the Grama Panchayat. However, the trial Court order shows that Rs.2,00,000/has been awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/to respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/to respondent No.2 as maintenance. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as a coolie under the Grama Panchayat. Apart from the vehicles name, the petitioner’s counsel has failed to produce any document to show that what is his actual income either before first Appellate Court or before this Court. Such being the case, the contention urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner being the legally wedded husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent-female child, cannot escape from his responsibility of maintaining them by merely contending that he is a coolie and does not have any income. That itself is not a ground to set aside the order or deny the maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2. 10. However, the order of maintenance passed by the trial Court requires modification. The petitioner-husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/to respondent No.2 female child and a sum of Rs.3,000/to respondent No.1wife as monthly maintenance. However, the direction of the trial Court that the petitioner shall pay compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/is hereby modified and reduced to Rs.1,00,000/. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. The order of maintenance passed by the trial Court is hereby modified to Rs.3,000/and Rs.4,000/respectively to respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the date of petition till her life time and in respect of respondent No.2 till her marriage. The petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/towards compensation.