This Criminal Revision Petition challenged an order awarding the wife maintenance and residence expenses under the Domestic Violence Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts' findings that the husband's actions constituted domestic violence and that the awarded quantum was justified given the husband's assets.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.R.P.No.942/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.942/2016
BETWEEN :
B.R.SUDHEER KUMAR S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O ANAJUR VILLAGE JANNAPURA POST MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132 … PETITIONER (BY SRI UMESH P.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SMT PALLAVI W/O B.R.SUDHEER KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O HOUSING BOARD CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUKA AND DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101 … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.N.R.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SJ., AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.384/2013 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
Crl.R.P.No.942/2016
2
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.25/2010 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT TO PAY A SUM OF RS.3,000/- PER MONTH TO THE RESPONDENT TOWARDS HER SEPARATE RESIDENCE AND RS.5,000/PER MONTH TOWARDS HER MAINTENANCE AND IN TOTAL RS.8,000/- PER MONTH FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION AND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY RS.5,000/- TO RESPONDENT TOWARDS THE COST OF THE PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
“Whether the impugned order awarding expenses at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month towards separate residence of the respondent and Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance suffer illegality, impropriety or incorrectness?” is the question involved in this case.
Crl.R.P.No.942/2016
3
4. The petitioner contested the said petition
denying the allegations of cruelty. He alleged that
Crl.R.P.No.942/2016
4
the wife herself was guilty of willful desertion and he has filed M.C.No.59/2010 for divorce. He claimed that though he owns the coffee estate that does not fetch any income and the respondent is able to maintain herself and thus sought for the dismissal of the petition.
5. The parties adduced evidence. After
hearing the parties, the Trial Court partly allowed the petition. The Trial Court held that the petitioner – husband has subjected the respondent herein to cruelty and neglected to maintain her and children despite having sufficient means and awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as expenses towards separate residence and Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.5,000/as costs. The petitioner was restrained from committing any kind of domestic violence. The Trial Court held that the fact of the petitioner suspecting the fidelity of the wife and
Crl.R.P.No.942/2016
5
disputing the paternity of the children also amounts to domestic violence.
Crl.R.P.No.942/2016
6
Crl.R.P.No.942/2016
7
the respondent submits that in the proceedings in Domestic Violence Act no maintenance was sought for the children and what ever is awarded is also not paid by the petitioner.
Crl.R.P.No.942/2016
8
M.C.No.59/2010 against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. In that petition, he sought paternity test of the children and failed. That order has attained finality. Ultimately, the said petition was dismissed.
Crl.R.P.No.942/2016
9
Imputing adultery to wife and disputing the paternity of the children itself amounts to domestic violence to both of them.
this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or impropriety in the findings of the Courts below that the petitioner subjected the respondent to domestic violence.
the petitioner possessed around 23 acres of coffee and pepper plantation and residential house. He admitted in his evidence that he owns a car and maintaining that. Considering that and the requirement of the respondent, the Trial Court awarded Rs.3,000/- per month for separate residence and Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance.
Crl.R.P.No.942/2016
10
This Court does not find any ground to interfere
with the matter. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
KG
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order awarding maintenance and separate residence expenses suffers illegality, impropriety or incorrectness under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B.R.SUDHEER KUMAR
SMT PALLAVI
K.S.MUDAGAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
