Dismissed

Udaya Kumar S/O Anantha Ramlu v. Anantha Ramlu S/O Sann Devalappa

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2016CRL.P/200421/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Reference Petition filed to challenge maintenance quantum enhanced to Rs. 5,000 under Section 125 CrPC. High Court upheld enhanced amount, finding no infirmity in lower appellate order despite petitionor seeking Rs. 15,000. Petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitions explicitly dismissed; maintenance quantum withheld from further enhancement as per lower court.

Udaya Kumar S/O Anantha Ramlu Vs Anantha Ramlu S/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND MARCH, 2016

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200421/2015 C/W. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200054/2014

¶8

IN CRL.P.NO.200421/2015

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

UDAY KUMAR S/O ANANTHA RAMLU AGED 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/AT REHAMAT NAGAR I.B. ROAD, MANVI DISTRICT RAICHUR- 584 123. ... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI USTAD FIRASATH HUSSAIN, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

ANANTHA RAMLU S/O SANNA DEVALAPPA AGED 73 YEARS OCC: AGRI. AND BUSINESS R/AT OPP. SHARADA VIDYALAYA MANVI DISTRICT RAICHUR- 584 123. ... RESPONDENT

¶14

¶15

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.06.2014 PASSED IN CRL.REV. P.NO.43/2014 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR AND ENHANCE THE MAINTENANCE FROM RS.5,000/- TO 15,000/- PER MONTH.

¶17

¶18

IN CRL.RP.NO.200054/2014

¶19

BETWEEN

¶20

ANANTHA RAMLU S/O SANNA DEVALAPPA AGE: 73 YEARS OCC: AGRL. AND BUSINESS R/O OPP. SHARADA VIDYALAYA, MANVI DIST. RAICHUR- 584 123. ... PETITIONER

¶21

(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R . MATH, ADV.) AND

¶22

UDAYA KUMAR S/O ANANTHA RAMLU AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O REHAMAT NAGAR I.B. ROAD, MANVI, TQ. MANVI DIST. RAICHUR- 584 123. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)

¶23

¶24

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MANVI IN CRL.MISC.NO.123/2011 AND ORDER DATED 20.06.2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.43/2014.

¶25

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

As both the petitions arose out of a common order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Crl. Revision Petition No.43/2014, they are taken up together and a common order is passed.

¶28

The ranks of the parties are referred to as per

¶29

their ranks before the Trial Court for the sake of easy understanding and convenience.

¶30

One Udaykumar (S/o.Anantharamulu) filed a petition u/s.125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent –

¶31

¶32

Anantaramulu, S/o.Sannadavalappa, who are residents of Manvi in Raichur District.

¶33

The petitioner being the son of the respondent has filed a petition u/s.125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that he has been suffering from a disease called Wilson and he is unable to maintain himself and therefore, he claimed maintenance against his father by filing maintenance petition. It is also urged in the petition that the respondent has sufficient income from his ancestral and joint family agricultural properties and also from the residential houses which he has let out and he has been getting lot of income from the said residential house also. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for awarding Rs.15,000/per month as maintenance.

¶34

The respondent having appeared before the Court filed objections denying the relationship between himself and the petitioner. He has contended that he

¶35

¶36

married one Yenkamma and out of their wedlock four children were born. The respondent further contended that he does not know either the mother of the petitioner or the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner is not suffering from Wilson diesease and taking treatment at Bengaluru. It is also contended that the petitioner being a major son, he can maintain himself and for all these reasons he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶37

On the basis of the rival contentions, the Trial Court has formulated three points for consideration which are as follows:

¶38

(1) Whether the petitioner proves that he is the son of respondent and unable to maintain himself as he is suffering from Wilson disease?

¶39

(2) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent having sufficient income willfully neglected to maintain him?

¶40

¶41

(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for interim maintenance from respondent? If so, what is the quantum?

¶42

(4) What orders?

¶43

The petitioner in order to establish his case, has examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-5. The learned Magistrate after evaluating the materials on record has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has established his case and the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and also the respondent has willfully neglected the petitioner from maintaining and therefore, awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of petition till the petitioner recovers from his Wilson disease or till further orders of the Court.

¶44

Being not satisfied with the award passed by the Trial Court seeking enhancement of maintenance, the petitioner Udaykumar approached the II Addl.

¶45

¶46

District and Sessions Judge, Raichur in Crl. Rev. Petition No.43/2014, vide order dated 20.6.2014 the learned Judge has allowed the said Revision Petition in part and enhanced the maintenance to Rs.5,000/- per month as against Rs.3,000/- ordered by the Trial Court.

¶47

It is worth to note here, so far as the findings of the learned Magistrate with regard to the relationship is concerned and also the willful negligence on the part of the respondent and the quantum has not been challenged by the respondent. However, the quantum that has been raised by the learned Sessions Judge has been questioned before this Court by the respondent. Therefore, it goes without saying that the findings given by the Trial Court has logically attained finality as the same has not been subjected to any appeal or revision by the respondent.

¶48

Apart from the above, as could be seen from the records, the learned JMFC, has considered the

¶49

¶50

Ration card, ID Card and Marks card which are marked at Ex.P3, P4 and P9 respectively and also Ex.P7 and P8 which are the caste and income certificates and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has established the relationship between himself and the respondent. Further, the learned Magistrate has also relied upon Ex.P2, Bangalore NIMHANS Hospital Card and also Ex.P5 & P6 Shakthi Diagonostic Hospital slips and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has established that he has been suffering form Wilson disease. As I have already noted, the appreciation of these documents and the evidence of PW1 by the Trial Court, has not been subjected to any challenge before the learned Sessions Judge.

¶51

In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, when the respondent has not questioned the findings given by the learned Magistrate, he cannot question the same before this Court. The

¶52

¶53

only point now remained for consideration is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur is proper and correct.

¶54

The petitioner has also called in question the order of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have enhanced the maintenance to Rs.15,000/- as sought for by the petitioner.

¶55

The learned Sessions Judge has considered the materials on record with regard to the income of the respondent. It is observed in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge that the respondent has not denied the properties standing in his name which are elucidated by documents marked at Exs.P10 to P15 which are the ROR extracts which showed that all the properties are ancestral properties and one of his sister has already filed a suit for partition and final decree

¶56

¶57

proceedings are pending in FDP No.15/2007. It is also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the respondent has got house properties and he would get rentals from the said properties. Respondent (father) has not given any explanation as to what exactly the income from these properties. When he has categorically admitted with regard to the existence of the properties and all the landed properties are yielding but what exactly the yield is only known to the respondent but he has not come forward to explain what exactly the income from those lands. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the lands totally measuring 54 acres 19 guntas which is available to the family of the respondent and respondent shown to be in possession of those properties. Therefore, considering all the surrounding circumstances and also the capability of the respondent and disability, mental illness that being suffered by the petitioner, the Court has enhanced the amount to Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.3,000/- as ordered

¶58

¶59

by the learned Magistrate. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He has considered all the materials on record and came to such conclusion. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference either for reduction of quantum of maintenance awarded or for enhancing the same. Therefore, in my opinion, the above said Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶60

Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

PL*

Udaya Kumar S/O Anantha Ramlu v. Anantha Ramlu S/O Sann Devalappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaya Kumar S/O Anantha Ramlu v. Anantha Ramlu S/O Sann Devalappa

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

Basawaraj S/O Goudappa Gouda and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka

Humera Unnisa W/O Md.Abdul Moshin and Ors. Vs the State through and Anr.

Sharangouda S/O Ramareddy Vs Sri.Channaveer S/O Annarao Biradar

Sadanand S/O Late Ganapati Hagargi and Ors. Vs the State through Gulbarga Rural Police Station and

Anantha Ramlu S/O Sanna Devalappa Vs Udaykumar S/O Anantha Ramlu

Santosh @ Muthuraj S/O Mailari Shellagi Vs the State through University Police Station