Dismissed

Sri M K Keshava Murthy v. Master Kamal Nayan M K

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022CRL.P/3563/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a BSF employee, challenging maintenance awards for his minor children from his first wife's widowhood. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition. The High Court held the father must support his children and dismissed the criminal petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the maintenance awards was dismissed; interlocutory application disposed conseq.

Sri M K Keshava Murthy Vs Master Kamal Nayan M K — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No.3563 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3563 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M.K. KESHAVA MURTHY S/O LATE. KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MARAKADUDDODDI VILLAGE, GORAVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDAY DISTRICT - 571 401

¶9

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT B.S.F. CAMPUS S.T.S., YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, REVA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 063

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RAJA L., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

MASTER KAMAL NAYAN M.K. AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

¶15

MASTER VEDANTH KESHAV M.K. AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS

¶16

BOTH ARE SONS OF M.K. KESHAVA MURTHY AND LATE. SMT. ASHWINI

¶17

BOTH THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No.3563 of 2022

¶20

ARE MINORS AND THEY REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MATERNAL GRAND MOTHER

¶21

SMT. L. SHARADA, WIFE OF VENKATESH S., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶22

BOTH THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND 2 AND THEIR GUARDIAN ALL ARE

¶23

RESIDING AT 1^ST CROSS, H.K.V. NAGAR, T.B. CIRCLE SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT ROAD, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA - 571 401

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MADDUR, IN CRL.MISC.NO.113/2020 DATED 28.09.2020 AS ANNEXURE-D AND ALSO 2^ND ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MANDYA IN CRL.RP.NO.12/2021 DATED 09.04.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-F.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

¶29

order dated 28-09-2020, passed by the Principal Civil

¶30

Judge and JMFC, Maddur in Criminal Miscellaneous No.113 of 2020 awarding maintenance of Rs.7500/- p.m. each, to be paid to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the order dated

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No.3563 of 2022

¶33

09-04-2021, passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Criminal Revision Petition No.12 of 2021, affirming the said award of maintenance.

¶34

Sans details, facts in brief are as follows:

¶35

The petitioner and the mother of the respondents

¶36

one Ashwini got married on 23-04-2008 and from the wedlock, two children are born – elder one on 05-02-2009 and the younger one on 03-02-2012. It appears that the mother of the respondents died after giving birth to both the children. The petitioner who is an employee working in the Border Security Force has always been at his work place at different places and the mother who died was taking care of the children completely. After the death of his wife, the petitioner got married to another lady.

¶37

The maternal grandmother with whom the children

¶38

are presently staying being unable to maintain them, files an application before the learned Magistrate in Criminal

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No.3563 of 2022

¶41

Miscellaneous No.113 of 2020 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner herein, the father of the respondents files his objections to the application seeking

¶42

award of maintenance and contested the matter. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 28-09-2020 allowed the application and directed Rs.7,500/p.m. as maintenance to be paid to each of the respondents. This was called in question by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.12 of 2021 under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. contending that the petitioner is taking care of the children, the school fee and other expenditure are being paid by him and he is not in a position to comply with the award of maintenance at Rs.7,500/- each, since he has to take care of the other family that he has. This is not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and the revision petition is dismissed by his order dated 09-04-2021, affirming the order of award of maintenance at Rs.7,500/- each to the respondents.

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No.3563 of 2022

¶45

Challenging both these orders, the petitioner/father of the respondents is before this Court in the subject petition.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that he has another family to maintain, school fees of the respondents is being paid by him and he has no means to pay Rs.15,000/-p.m., month on month basis; that he is employed with the Border Security Force and the salary that he gets there would not be enough to maintain all of them and he would submit that being the father, he is otherwise taking care of the children.

¶47

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶48

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

¶49

respondents herein who are presently aged 13 years and 11 years respectively, are the children of the petitioner,

¶50

¶51

CRL.P No.3563 of 2022

¶52

born from the wedlock with the first wife – Ashwini, who after giving birth to the children died. The children are taken care of by their maternal grandmother, who files the application seeking maintenance from the hands of the father as she has no means to maintain the children as they are growing up and needs are also going up. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 28-09-2020, considering the objections filed by the petitioner herein allows the application by grant of Rs.7,500/- p.m. each as interim maintenance. While doing so, the salary of the petitioner was looked into for the month of July 2018, which indicates as Rs.62,427/-, had two acres of wet land and also considered the affidavit of the petitioner that he has taken care of expenses of his children and orders Rs.7,500/- p.m. each to be paid to his sons. The reason rendered by the learned Magistrate is that, cost of living and all other expenses have grown with the growing children and it is the duty of the father to maintain the children. The father challenges this order before the

¶53

¶54

CRL.P No.3563 of 2022

¶55

learned Sessions Judge, who confirms the order reiterating what was held by the learned Magistrate. The reason rendered by the learned Sessions Judge is as follows:

¶56

“8. Point No.1: The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the trial court failed to consider the fact that he does not have the financial capacity to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondents. Perusal of the records reveals that, the petitioner No.1 has completed 5^th standard and petitioner No.2 has completed 2^nd standard. Records reveal that, after the death of the mother of the petitioners, they are taken care of by their maternal grandmother and they are in her custody. Admittedly, the respondent is living separately along with his second wife.

¶57

90. It is contended by the petitioners that the respondent is working in B.S.F. and he has got two acres of wet land, one house and one site at his native place. Further, the petitioners have produced pay slip of the respondent before the trial Court to show that the respondent is drawing a net salary of Rs.62,427/-. Considering the above said circumstance and the documents brought on record, the trial Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs.7500/- p.m. each to the petitioner to meet their food, medical and educational expenses. The above said interim

¶58

¶59

CRL.P No.3563 of 2022

¶60

maintenance amount granted to the petitioners is reasonable and the same cannot be termed as arbitrary.”

¶61

The orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court as what is awarded is interim maintenance of Rs.7,500/- p.m. to each of his children i.e., the respondents, who have lost their mother and are staying with their maternal grandmother. It is the duty of the petitioner to maintain his children who were born from the wedlock of his first wife and cannot be seen to contend that he is not in a position to maintain his own children.

¶62

The case at hand is a tragic case where the children have lost their mother. The petitioner has now married second time and it is the maternal grandmother who is taking care of the children of the petitioner has no

¶63

means to maintain the children and the father is fighting shy of undertaking his responsibility of maintaining his

¶64

¶65

CRL.P No.3563 of 2022

¶66

children by challenging the order before every fora. Therefore, the father / petitioner cannot be absolved from taking the responsibility of his children by giving them financial support so as to prevent them from falling into destitute or vagrancy.

¶67

Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed.

¶68

I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed, as a consequence.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

nvj

Sri M K Keshava Murthy v. Master Kamal Nayan M K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M K Keshava Murthy v. Master Kamal Nayan M K

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

Sri Anil Kumar Vs the Director General

Sri S P Krishna Kumar Vs State by

Sri R N Sreekantaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Madan Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajesh R Vs State of Karnataka by Police Inspector

Mr Saibaba Vs State by Cottonpet Police Station Bengaluru City