Dismissed

Sri Shivakumaraswamy v. Smt Lalitha Bai

Karnataka HC28 Apr 2015CRL.RP/835/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought revision challenging the lower courts' order awarding maintenance and compensation for domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act. The High Court found no merit in the challenge, holding the compensation and maintenance amounts were appropriate given the facts.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed. The order awarding Rs.1,00,000/- compensation and Rs.3,000/- per month maintenance was affirmed.

Sri Shivakumaraswamy Vs Smt Lalitha Bai — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRL.RP.No.835/2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.835/2014

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SHIVAKUMARASWAMY, S/O M.B.SEETHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT BALAJI NILLAYA, BEHIND HOYSALESWARA COLLEGE, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M.PRAKASH, ADV. FOR M/S. N.R.NAIK & ASSOCIATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT LALITHA BAI, W/O SHIVAKUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶14

KUM. SOUJANYA, D/O SHIVAKUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.

¶15

KUMAR SATHWIK, S/O SHIVAKUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.

¶16

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MCF QUARTERS,

¶17

-2-

¶18

CRL.RP.No.835/2014

¶19

DASARAKOPPALU, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN – 573 201.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADV.)

¶22

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.171/12 ORDER DATED:31.7.14 PARTLY ALLOWED BY THE P.O, AND ADDL.DIST. AND S.J., FTC, HASSAN AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.110/2008 DATED:01.12.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.C.J. AND JMFC, HASSAN.

¶23

THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents absent.

¶27

An order of maintenance and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the First Appellate Court is challenged in this revision petition.

¶28

The facts reveal that the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.1 filed a petition in the

¶29

trial Court under Section 12 of the Protection of

¶30

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking

¶31

CRL.RP.No.835/2014

¶32

-3-

¶33

compensation and maintenance. She is a Central Government employee. The trial Court granted Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3. This order was challenged in the appeal before the Sessions Court which has allowed the appeal of the petitioner in part by reducing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- affirming the order of maintenance. Aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the present revision petition is filed.

¶34

Learned counsel submits that compensation awarded at Rs.1,00,000/- is on the higher side and it needs modification. It is his submission that respondent No.1 is a Central Government employee and therefore, there is no financial problem for her. Hence, he seeks reduction in the amount of compensation. So also he submits that maintenance granted at Rs.3,000/- is also on the higher side.

¶35

CRL.RP.No.835/2014

¶36

-4-

¶37

Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the petitioner is High School Teacher and admits the marriage between himself and respondent No.1 and legitimacy of the children i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the trial Court is of the opinion that the petitioner did not take care of the children and granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3. In fact, the petitioner admits in his evidence that he did not take responsibility of his children and their education prior to filing of the petition. Sofar as compensation is concerned, though respondent No.1 is a Central Government employee, compensation paid is towards domestic violence that has been caused by the petitioner to the respondent.

¶38

6. Perusal of the cross-examination referred

¶39

to in the impugned judgment and order reveals that the petitioner had issued a notice calling upon the respondent No.1 for dissolution of the marriage and it appears that there was legitimacy demand by

¶40

CRL.RP.No.835/2014

¶41

-5-

¶42

respondent No.1. Taking into consideration the

¶43

material placed on record, I do not think that the compensation granted at Rs.1,00,000/- by the First Appellate Court modifying the order of the trial Court needs any interference. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

¶44

Consequently, the revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶45

I.No.2/2014 does not survive for consideration.

¶46

Hence, it is rejected.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sri Shivakumaraswamy v. Smt Lalitha Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivakumaraswamy v. Smt Lalitha Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avinash Vs State of Karnataka

Sr Mohammed Ayub Suhail Vs Station House Officer

Muniraja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraja Vs State by Dabaspet

Sri Ramayya Shetty Vs Smt Jyothi M Bhat