Disposed

Sri Satvinder Singh Bassi v. Smt Tripti Bassi

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2021CRL.P/2750/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw fixed deposits for medical expenses. It held that since maintenance compensation is pending in appeal, the petition was disposed of without permitting immediate withdrawal, directing the petitioner to wait for the appellate outcome.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without permitting the immediate withdrawal of the fixed deposits; the petitioner must wait for the disposal of the pending criminal appeal.

Sri Satvinder Singh Bassi Vs Smt Tripti Bassi — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2750/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SATVINDER SINGH BASSI, SON OF LATE SRI LABH SINGH BASSI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT 42, BLOCK ‘D’, NALANDA APARTMENTS, VIKAS PURI, NEW DELHI-110018. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI S. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. TRIPTI BASSI, WIFE OF SRI SATVINDER SINGH BASSI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.104, PHASE II, PRESTIGE LANGLEIGH, ECC ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO WITHDRAW THE MONIES IN THE FIXED DEPOSITS STANDING JOINTLY IN THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT, BEARING Nos.136610000107, 022610001047, 022610001513, 022610002053, 0226110001278, 022613001182, 02261010721 IN ICIC BANK, VASCO DA GAMA,

¶14

¶15

GOA BRANCH I.E., PRINCIPAL OF Rs.76,85 LAKHS PLUS INTEREST, TO WITHDRAW THE FIXED DEPOSIT STANDING IN THE SOLE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AMOUNTING TO Rs.16 LAKHS PLUS INTEREST IN SYNDICATE BANK, E.O.TAFS, SUBROTO PARK, DELHI CANTT, NEW DELHI-110010 BRANCH, BEARING No.427136 AND ETC.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.02.2021, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to permit the petitioner to withdraw the monies in the fixed deposits standing jointly in the names of the petitioner and

¶19

the respondent to the tune of Rs.76,85,000/- plus interest and also to withdraw the fixed deposits standing in the sole name of the respondent which was deposited by the petitioner herein amounting to Rs.16,00,000/- plus interest in connection with the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court, Bengaluru in Criminal Misc.No.221/2015.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner herein and at the instance of the respondent Criminal Misc.No.221/2015 is filed and the learned Magistrate vide her order dated 27.11.2017 directed the

¶21

¶22

petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent herein towards rental expenses and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent, if the respondent is deprived of the interest which she is at present receiving from the joint fixed deposit account, from the date for which she is deprived of such interest and to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/compensation to the respondent herein.

¶23

Being aggrieved by the said order,

¶24

Crl.A.No.1779/2017 is pending before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and in the said appeal, the Appellate Court was pleased to grant the stay vide order dated 03.02.2018 except interest being received by the respondent.

¶25

The respondent also filed an interim application before the Appellate Court to vacate the interim order relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.34469/2015, wherein it has held that the stay cannot be granted in an order passed in a domestic violence complaint. In view of the same, the interim order granted earlier was vacated in the criminal appeal. Consequent upon the order dated 18.12.2019, the petitioner filed an application before the Sessions Court to comply with the order dated 27.11.2017 without prejudice to his contentions in

¶26

¶27

criminal appeal and subject to the outcome of the said appeal. The respondent herein had filed objections to the said application and the petitioner herein undertook to withdraw the said application pending before the Sessions Court. The petitioner herein has preferred the present petition seeking a direction from the Court to withdraw the fixed deposits standing in the joint names of the petitioner and the respondent on the ground that the petitioner is in need of funds to undergo angioplasty and meet his medical expenses.

¶28

The main grounds urged in this petition is that the petitioner bereft of other alternative efficacious remedy has approached this Hon'ble Court seeking for permission to withdraw the fixed deposits standing in the joint names of the petitioner and the respondent undertaking to comply with the order dated 27.11.2017. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he has no money or assets other than the aforementioned fixed deposits and the property situated at Goa. If the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the fixed deposits, he undertakes to pay the monthly amount and other amount as directed by this Court without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶29

¶30

would vehemently contend that this Court vide order dated 01.09.2020 passed an order directing the respondent to redeposit a sum of Rs.36,85,000/- as the respondent herein withdrew the entire fixed deposit of Rs.76,85,000/- and accordingly the amount has been re-deposited. The question involved between the parties with regard to payment of maintenance and other amount is seized of in the Appellate Court, which is pending for adjudication. The petitioner is not having any other source of income except the amount, which is in deposit and he is in need of medical attention for angioplasty treatment and other medical expenses and hence he may be permitted to withdraw the amount.

¶31

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the order passed in Criminal Misc.No.221/2015 is challenged before the Appellate Court and the same is for final disposal and the petitioner is not coming forward to assist the Court in disposal of the case pointing out the pendency of the petition before this Court. The respondent is residing separately and the petitioner has earned

¶32

Rs.1,14,00,000/- from 2013 to 2015 and he is working as a Freelancer. Page No.28 discloses about his salary and income

¶33

¶34

and he is still working and getting the salary and there cannot be any order to permit him to withdraw the fixed deposit as sought.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, it is not in dispute that an order has been passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Misc.No.221/2015 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month towards the rental and an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month if the respondent herein is not allowed to receive the interest. Apart from that, an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- is ordered towards compensation in favour of the respondent. It is also an undisputed fact that the amount which has been kept in fixed deposit in the joint names to the tune of Rs.76,85,000/- has been withdrawn by the respondent herein. This Court after hearing both the counsel, made an internal arrangement vide order dated 01.09.2020 directing the respondent to re-deposit Rs.36,85,000/- in keeping the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is also important to note that the respondent has already withdrawn an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and an order has been passed against the petitioner herein to pay Rs.30,000/- per month towards rental as

¶36

¶37

well as if the respondent is not allowed to withdraw the interest out of the fixed deposit.

¶38

It is also important to note that the Appellate Court

¶39

also passed an order staying the order passed by the learned Magistrate except receiving of Rs.30,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the appeal is pending before the Court and the Appellate Court has to re-visit with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Magistrate both in respect of rental as well as receiving the interest out of the deposit. Now an amount of Rs.36,85,000/- has been re-deposited and the respondent has already utilized an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. When the matter is pending for adjudication in criminal appeal and the same is subject matter of consideration of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, in view of the interim arrangement made by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2020, at this juncture the question of permitting the petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs.76,85,000/- does not arise. No doubt, the petitioner has undertaken to comply with the order of the learned Magistrate subject to the result of the appeal. If the petitioner is permitted to withdraw even the

¶40

¶41

amount which has been re-deposited on direction of this Court by order dated 01.09.2020 to the tune of Rs.36,85,000/-, again the respondent would be subjected to financial constraints and the petitioner has to continue to pay the maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent. The petitioner himself has stated in the petition that except the joint deposit amount and property at Goa, he is not having any other source. But it is the claim of the respondent that the petitioner is still working as a Freelancer and he has earned Rs.1,14,00,000/- for the period from 2013 to 2015. This Court cannot decide the disputed question of whether he is earning or not in a proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶42

8. It is also important to note that the second prayer

¶43

before this Court is to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- which has been deposited in the name of the respondent. But he claims that the said amount is also deposited by the petitioner. In this proceedings, this Court cannot decide the disputed question with regard to whether the petitioner has deposited the said amount or the said amount belongs to the respondent herein. When the matter has been pending before the Appellate Court with regard to the quantum

¶44

¶45

of compensation as well as maintenance as ordered by the Magistrate, it is not appropriate to pass an order by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. permitting the petitioner to withdraw the entire amount as sought in the petition. I have already pointed out that a portion of the amount has already been utilized by the respondent and the same has to be adjusted subject to the result of the criminal appeal, which is pending before the Appellate Court and thereafter after deducting the amount, subject to payment of the amount in terms of the criminal appeal, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the balance amount and the same cannot be quantified at this juncture. The petitioner has to wait till the disposal of the criminal appeal and thereafter subject to compliance of the order of the learned Magistrate and consequent result of the criminal appeal, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the balance amount, which is kept in joint deposit. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount subject to making the payment of maintenance and compensation as determined by the Appellate Court making the provision for payment without leading to any multiplicity of the proceedings in future for nonpayment of the future maintenance.

¶46

¶47

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

MD

Sri Satvinder Singh Bassi v. Smt Tripti Bassi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Satvinder Singh Bassi v. Smt Tripti Bassi

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

Bharatesh Kumar S M Vs State of Karnataka

Gopal Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri A.C. Chennaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. C Bharathi Vs Smt. K Manjula

Sri. Hemanth Kumar L Vs State by

Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka