Allowed

Smt.Annapurna W/O Chennappa Mali @ Balikai v. Shri.Chennappa S/O Kallappa Mali @ Balikari

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2022CRL.P/100992/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash an order by the Sessions Judge that reduced monthly maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the reduction unreasoned and unsustainable, quashing the impugned order and restoring the order enhancing maintenance to Rs.3,000/-.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 in Crl.R.P. No.5/2016 is quashed; the order enhancing maintenance to Rs.3,000/- per month is restored.

Smt.Annapurna W/O Chennappa Mali @ Balikai Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100992 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100992 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.ANNAPURNA W/O CHENNAPPA MALI @ BALIKAI AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O: ISHWAR S/O GURUBASAPPA MALI, R/O: MALI GALLI, JAMKHANDI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SHRI.CHENNAPPA S/O KALLAPPA MALI @ BALIKARI AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND TUTIONS, R/O: BUDNI PLOT, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL. PIN: 587312

¶14

…RESPONDENT (respondent – served) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.09.2018 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI, IN CRL.RP.NO.5/2016.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 100992 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent. The learned Magistrate, initially, had awarded a sum of Rs.250/towards monthly maintenance and the same was enhanced to Rs.500/-. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the monthly maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Magistrate, after recording the evidence, passed an order enhancing the monthly maintenance to Rs.3,000/- against which the respondent herein filed revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge reduced the monthly maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/-. Against the same, the present petition is filed.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- granted to the petitioner is just and proper. However, the learned

¶21

¶22

CRL.P No. 100992 of 2019

¶23

Sessions Judge, without assigning any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance to Rs.1,000/- which is not sustainable in law.

¶24

The respondent, though served, has remained

¶25

unrepresented.

¶26

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶27

learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

The respondent has filed a petition in M.C. No.17/2016 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolving his marriage with the petitioner. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondent produced a copy of order passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby the monthly maintenance was enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.3,000/-. In view of the same, the Court concerned rejected the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act stating that the

¶29

¶30

CRL.P No. 100992 of 2019

¶31

petitioner has already been granted enhanced maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court taking into consideration that the respondent, the husband of the petitioner, is duty bound to maintain the petitioner has rightly enhanced the monthly maintenance from Rs.500/to Rs.3,000/-. However, the learned Sessions Judge, without considering these aspects and without assigning any reason, has modified the order passed by the learned Magistrate reducing the monthly maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/- which is very meager and not sufficient to meet the day-to-day requirements, and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶34

ii) The impugned order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi, in Crl.R.P. No.5/2016 is hereby quashed.

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 100992 of 2019

¶37

iii) The order passed by the learned Magistrate enhancing the maintenance to Rs.3,000/- per month is hereby restored.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

KMS

Smt.Annapurna W/O Chennappa Mali @ Balikai v. Shri.Chennappa S/O Kallappa Mali @ Balikari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Annapurna W/O Chennappa Mali @ Balikai v. Shri.Chennappa S/O Kallappa Mali @ Balikari

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

Case details

Similar cases

Kuppam Ramaiyer Sridhara Murthi Vs Directorate of Enforcement

R Surendra Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmi. C. Shekhar Vs the Commissioner

Tarunkumar S/O Kenchappa Malagali Vs the Secretary (Pri and Seco.)

Shri.Suryakant S/O Gopall Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandramma W/O. Fakkirappa Vs the State of Karnataka