Dismissed

Sri Y Thippeswamy v. Smt. S Radhamma

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2021CRL.P/762/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Praying to quash an order granting monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000 to the respondent wife. The court held there was no error in the lower courts' orders as the petitioner failed to prove lower income despite evidence on record.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the orders granting maintenance of Rs.30,000 per month was dismissed.

Sri Y Thippeswamy Vs Smt. S Radhamma — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 762 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Sri. Y.Thippeswamy, S/o. Yellappa, Aged about 55 years, Residing at Lakshmi Cargo Movers, Transport Business, R.M.C. Yard, Near Kanteerava Studio, Yeshwanthapura, Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560022.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri. Siddappa B.M., Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Smt. S.Radhamma, W/o. Y.Thippeswamy, Aged about 50 years, Residing at near Filter House, Kamanabhavi Badavane, Chitradurga-577501.

¶11

…Respondent

¶12

(By Sri. N.Shivakumar, HCGP)

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order passed by the learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.RP.No.113/2019 dated 23.12.2019 and the order passed by the 1^st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

¶14

¶15

Chitradurga dated 18.06.2019 in Crl.Misc.No.221/2015 by allowing this Criminal Petition.

¶16

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C praying

¶19

this court to set aside the order passed by the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Crl.RP.No.113/2019 dated 23.12.2019 and the order passed by the 1^st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, dated 18.06.2019 allowing Crl.Misc. No.221/2015 filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein has initiated Crl. Mis. No. 221/2015 claiming maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month. After issuance of notice against the petitioner herein, both of them contested the matter and led evidence. The trial court after recording the evidence of the respondent herein and also the petitioner herein and relying upon the

¶21

¶22

documents Exs. P1 to P16 allowed the petition in part granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. The same was challenged before the revision court by both the parties in Crl. R.P. Nos. 113 and 115/2019. The learned revisional court Judge dismissed both the revision petitions and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, the present petition is filed before this court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the courts have committed an error in granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month in the absence of documentary proof that the petitioner is getting more income to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/-. Counsel also would vehemently contend that the son is working and the award of Rs.30,000/- is on the higher side and hence it requires interference of this court.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the courts have considered the material on record and a reasoned order

¶25

¶26

has been passed and the revisional court also reappreciated the material available on record and revisions filed by both the parties have been dismissed confirming the order of maintenance granting Rs.30,000/- per month and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial court.

¶27

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, the respondent herein placed Exhibits P1 to P16 i.e., DCB register extract of house property-Ex.P1, four positive photographs which are marked as Exs. P2 to P5, computer CD as Ex.P6, internet documents as Exs.P7 and P8, certified copy of sale deed Ex.P9, certified copy of partition deed Ex.P10 and also Exs.P13 and P14 positive photographs, Ex.P15 electricity bill. The trial court while considering the contentions of the respective parties from paras 10 to 22 discussed in detail particularly from paragraph 16 wherein respondent No.1 who has been examined before the trial court has admitted regarding his properties and also the businesses

¶28

¶29

he is having and also staying along with his second wife in Bengaluru and the documents which have been placed before the trial court have not been rebutted by the respondent and even the reasoning given in coming to the conclusion that the respondent herein is entitled for maintenance of Rs.30,000/- having taken note of the status of the parties. The revisional court in the revisions considering the contentions raised by the parties and taking into consideration the discussions in paras 9 to 18 and also in para 15 taken note of the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of RW1 and apart from that paragraph 16 taken note of the present cost of living and also taken note of the status of the petitioner herein and rightly came to the conclusion that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is not on the higher side and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial court. Having taken note of the reasoning of the trial court and also the reasoning of the revisional court and having taken note of the admissions elicited from the mouth of RW1, detailed discussion has

¶30

¶31

been made by the trial court in paras 16 to 22 and also the reasoning of the revisional court and perused the grounds in the revision and also the material available on record. Having taken note of the status of the parties and the income of the respondent and also the admission elicited and also the documents which have been relied upon by the respondent i.e.,Exs. P1 to P16 are not disputed by the respondent and hence, I do not find any error in both the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court in granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. There is no merit in the petition to quash the orders of the respective courts as sought for in the petition.

¶32

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶33

following : -

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

ckl

Sri Y Thippeswamy v. Smt. S Radhamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Y Thippeswamy v. Smt. S Radhamma

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

Mr. Amith Banerji Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Pramila Vs the State of Karnataka by

Shri Mohammed Shamsheer @ Shamsheer Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sadananda Poojari Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sabha Infinte Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Lakshmi Gold Khazaana Pvt. Ltd.

Preetham Gangadhar Vs State by Byatarayanapura Police