Dismissed

Smt. Geeta W/O. Fakirappa Talwar v. Fakirappa Shivappa Talwar

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2018CRL.RP/100136/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court in Crl.R.P. No.100136 of 2017 relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand. The court dismissed the petitioner's revision under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that a second wife without legal wedded status should approach the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 forum.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; Petitioner left at liberty to approach the appropriate forum under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Smt. Geeta W/O. Fakirappa Talwar Vs Fakirappa… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRL. R. P. NO.100136 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. GEETA W/O. FAKIRAPPA TALWAR AGE:36 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEMAKER R/O. MUMARADDI KOPPA PRESENTLY AT TULASIGERI-587101 TQ. & DIST:BAGALKOT

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI S D BABLADI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

FAKIRAPPA SHIVAPPA TALWAR AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE IN RAILWAY, R/O. BADAMI PRESENTLY AT HOMBAL RAILWAY STATION-582204 TQ. & DIST:GADAG

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI S. C. HIREMATH FOR SRI S. B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND EXAMINE LEGALITY, VALIDITY AND PROPRIETY OF ORDER PASSED BY PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 123 OF 2009 DATED 6.3.2017, WHEREIN LEARNED JUDGE ALLOWED IMPUGNED REVISION, SET ASIDE ORDER PASSED BY I ADDL. JMFC BAGALKOT, IN CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 39 OF 2007 DATED 14.08.2009 GRANTING

¶16

¶17

MAINTENANCE OF RS.1500/- PER MONTH, FROM THE DATE OF ORDER UNDER SEC. 125 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973, WITH LITIGATION EXPENSES OF RS. 2000/- BY EXERCISING REVISIONAL POWERS UNDER SEC. 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE ORDER PASSED BY PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT AND RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED BY I ADDL. JMFC, BAGALKOT BY GRANTING MONTHLY MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in Crl.R.P. No.123/2009 dated 06.03.2017, wherein the learned Judge allowed the said revision petition filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order passed by the I Additional J.M.F.C., Bagalkot, in Crl. Misc. No.39/2007, dated 14.08.2009, granting maintenance of Rs.1,500/p.m. to the petitioner herein under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the date of the order and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-.

¶21

¶22

The petitioner claiming to be the second wife and not a legally wedded wife of the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the I Additional J.M.F.C., Bagalkot,

¶23

seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/p.m. from the date of the petition and also litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 14.08.2009 was pleased to partly allow the said petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the respondent herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. to the petitioner from the date of the order and also awarded litigation expenses in a sum of Rs.2,000/-.

¶24

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent herein preferred criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court, which came to be allowed and order passed by the learned

¶25

¶26

Magistrate was set aside which is impugned

¶27

herein.

¶28

I have heard the learned counsels

¶29

appearing for the parties.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that in view of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Toppo v. The State of Jharkhand and Another (Criminal Appeal No.1656/2015 dated 30^th October 2018) the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the petitioner has to claim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘DVC Act, 2005’).

¶31

In Lalita Toppo’s case (supra) the

¶32

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶33

¶34

“ 3. In fact, under the provisions of the DVC Act, 2005 the victim i.e. estranged wife or live-in-partner would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely, to a shared household also.

¶35

The questions referred to us by the Referral Order were formulated on the basis of the decisions of this court rendered in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and others which were rendered prior to the coming into force of the DVC Act, 2005. In view of what has been stated herein before, it is, therefore, our considered view that the questions referred would not require any answer. We, therefore, decline to answer the said questions. The appellant is left with the remedy of approaching the appropriate Forum under the provisions of the DVC Act, 2005, if so advised. If in the event the appellant moves the appropriate Forum under the provisions of the DVC Act, 2005, we would request the said Forum to

¶36

¶37

decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.”

¶38

In view of the aforesaid position and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is dismissed. Nevertheless, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum under the provisions of the DVC Act, 2005, if so advised.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

hnm

Smt. Geeta W/O. Fakirappa Talwar v. Fakirappa Shivappa Talwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geeta W/O. Fakirappa Talwar v. Fakirappa Shivappa Talwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rayappa and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka

MD Ayyub Vs the State

Ranjitha and Anr. Vs the State

M. Gopalrao Vs Md. Areef S/O Imamsab Nadaf

Prakash S/O. Ningappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Chinnappa Vs State of Karnataka