Partly allowed

Smt Sharadamma N v. Sri Manjunatha B S

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2022CRL.RP/22/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the Sessions Court’s order that quashed interim maintenance. The court withdrew prejudicial observations, restored the Magistrate’s order, and directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance to the petitioner and child.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Sessions Court order set aside; Magistrate order restored and modified; Respondent directed to pay interim maintenance to petitioner and child.

Smt Sharadamma N Vs Sri Manjunatha B S — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.22 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Smt. Sharadamma N., W/o Manjunatha B.S., Aged about 26 years, R/at Nayanahalli Village, Patrenahalli Post, Chikkaballapur Taluk & District-562101.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Smt. Kusum Ranganath, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Sri Manjunatha B.S., S/o Sampangi Ramaiah, Aged about 29 years, R/at Byyappanahalli Village, Yelagere Post, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk & District-562101.

¶12

…Respondent (By Sri S.N.Aswathnarayan, Advocate)

¶13

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 25.09.2020 in Crl.A.No.78/2019 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura and etc.

¶14

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission through video conferencing this day, the Court made the following:

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This revision petition has been filed

¶18

challenging the order dated 25.9.2020 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, in Criminal Appeal No. 78/2019.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶20

petitioner and the respondent.

¶21

In a report made by the Protection Officer, the reliefs under Sections 19 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (‘D.V.Act’ for short) were sought. Then the petitioner made an application under Section 23 of the D.V.Act for interim order of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner has stated that the respondent lived with her for a certain period of time and promising to marry her, developed sexual relationship with her and this resulted in her giving birth to a male child. The respondent has denied his relationship with her.

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

But, the learned Magistrate allowed the application of the petitioner and passed an interim order directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/per month to the petitioner and Rs.500/- per month to the child. Aggrieved by this interim order passed by the Magistrate, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court, Chikkaballapura. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Magistrate and therefore this revision petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the paternity of the child is not disputable and in this view it is quite obvious that the petitioner and the respondent lived together. In this view, the petitioner would be entitled to claim maintenance and this was the reason for the Magistrate to allow her application for interim maintenance. She argues that the Sessions Court while passing the impugned order has made

¶25

:: 4 ::

¶26

certain comments touching the merits of the petition itself. This would influence the learned Magistrate while deciding the main petition on merits. In this view, these observations must be expunged and the order of the Magistrate should be restored.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has suppressed her marriage with one Srinivasachari. She has made false claim against the respondent for maintenance even though they never lived together. The Sessions Judge is justified in setting aside the interim order passed by the Magistrate.

¶28

If the impugned order is perused, as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Sessions Judge has made certain observations which may influence the Magistrate while deciding the main petition filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of

¶29

:: 5 ::

¶30

Women from Domestic Violence Act. It was not necessary for the Sessions Court to have made such observations. Though in the operative portion it is stated that the trial court shall decide the petition on merits without being influenced by any of the observations, certainly the observations made in the impugned order will prejudice the case of the petitioner. The scope of the appeal preferred challenging the order of granting interim maintenance is limited, the appellate Court should examine whether the facts and circumstances warranted granting of interim maintenance or not. Anything that has to be decided after holding enquiry should not be adverted to. Therefore the observations that the learned Sessions Judge has made are not justifiable and need to be expunged.

¶31

So far as granting interim maintenance is concerned, the respondent has disputed his relationship with the petitioner and his contention

¶32

:: 6 ::

¶33

is that the petitioner is already married to another

¶34

person. It is a matter of enquiry. However, it appears that the respondent is the biological father of the child. In this view, a question arises whether the petitioner and the respondent really lived together for a certain period of time. In a situation like this, the learned Sessions Judge could have at least confirmed the order of the Magistrate for paying the maintenance to the child. The entire order is set aside which is not at all justifiable. I find that there is a case for interference in this revision as the Sessions Court has committed an error. Hence, I pass the following :-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(a) Petition is allowed.

¶37

(b) The impugned order of the Sessions Court is set aside.

¶38

:: 7 ::

¶39

(c) The order of the Magistrate is restored, but it is modified in such a way that the respondent shall deposit the interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- payable to the petitioner in the court of Magistrate till the main petition is decided on merits.

¶40

(d) The respondent is directed to pay interim maintenance to the child till the disposal of the petition on merits.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

ckl/-

Smt Sharadamma N v. Sri Manjunatha B S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sharadamma N v. Sri Manjunatha B S

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

Syed Atheek Ahamed Vs Smt. Nagamma

Smt.Suguna H J Vs Sri.E.Kumaraswamy Naidu

Puttamallaiah Vs State by Chikkanayakanahalli Police

Sri B G Venkata Reddy Vs Sri Manikanta

Power Track Vs Smt Roopa v Hubli

Mr. Manoj Kumar M R Vs State of Karnataka