Partly allowed

Gnaneshamurthy v. Anusha

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2023CRL.P/1879/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner husband challenged maintenance orders on grounds of property partition. Court allowed petition in part, set aside impugned orders, remitted matter to Magistrate for fresh evaluation of documents regarding land allotment and maintenance entitlement, and directed payment balance to wife.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 12.11.2013 and 01.07.2016 set aside; matter remitted to Magistrate; balance deposit directed to wife; interim deposit disbursed.

Gnaneshamurthy Vs Anusha — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 1879 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 1880 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1879 OF 2017

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1880 OF 2017

¶10

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1879 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

GNANESHAMURTHY

S/O CHANNABASAIAH

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT ALAGHATTA VILLAGE SRIRAMAPURA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK - 577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶15

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. R P SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

ANUSHA

¶19

…PETITIONER

¶20

D/O GNANESHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS

¶21

2. ARPITHA

¶22

D/O GNANESHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

¶23

PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE MINORS AND HENCE ARE

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 1879 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 1880 of 2017

¶26

REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER

¶27

AND NATURAL GUARDIAN - PETITIONER NO.4

¶28

ANKITHA

¶29

D/O GNANESHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶30

4. HEMAVATHI

¶31

W/O GNANESHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶32

ALL ARE RESIDING AT VANABOGIHALLI VILLAGE YAGATI HOBLI KADUR TALUK - 577 548 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. N PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.B.S.HADIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 R.3 - SERVED)

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATD 12.11.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA IN CRL.MISC. NO.478/2012 AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SPECIAL, II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN CRL.RP.NO.17/2014 AT ANNEXURE-B FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN ABOVE AND ETC.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 1879 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 1880 of 2017

¶38

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1880 OF 2017

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

GNANESHAMURTHY S/O CHANNABASAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT ALAGHATTA VILLAGE SRIRAMAPURA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK - 577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶41

…PETITIONER

¶42

(BY SRI. R P SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND:

¶44

ANUSHA

¶45

D/O GNANESHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS

¶46

ARPITHA

¶47

D/O GNANESHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

¶48

PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE MINORS AND HENCE ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN - PETITIONER NO.4

¶49

ANKITHA

¶50

D/O GNANESHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶51

4. HEMAVATHI

¶52

W/O GNANESHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶53

ALL ARE RESIDING AT VANABOGIHALLI VILLAGE

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 1879 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 1880 of 2017

¶56

YAGATI HOBLI KADUR TALUK - 577 548 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

¶57

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.B.S.HADIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 R.3 - SERVED)

¶58

¶59

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

These captioned criminal petitions are filed by the petitioner - husband assailing the orders passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal Revision Petition No.17/2014 and Criminal Revision Petition No.9/2014.

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 1879 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 1880 of 2017

¶63

¶64

The petitioner - husband is challenging the

¶65

orders in granting maintenance to the wife and children on the ground that in a partition suit i.e., O.S.No.309/2011, the share was allotted to the respondents and in the final decree proceedings, the respondents are allotted the land bearing Sy. Nos.85/4, 34/1, 160, 41/1, 84/3 and 85/2 and possession is handed over. Therefore, petitioner - husband claims that if lands are allotted to the respondents in 2017, the maintenance awarded after handing over possession needs to be interfered at the hands of this Court.

¶66

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶67

The petitioner - husband is contesting the grant of maintenance beyond 2017 on the ground that wife and children are already allotted their legitimate share in the ancestral properties and they are put in

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 1879 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 1880 of 2017

¶69

¶70

possession. However, these documents were not produced before the learned Magistrate while contesting the maintenance petition. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter needs to be remitted back to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of these documents and thereafter, decide as to whether wife and children are entitled for maintenance after 2017.

¶71

In compliance of the order passed by this

¶72

Court dated 28.06.2023, the petitioner - husband has partially deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.077069 dated 25.07.2023 in the name of the Registrar General of this Court. The Demand Daft is placed on record. However, in terms of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner - husband was required to deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶73

For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view

¶74

that the matter requires reconsideration.

¶75

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 1879 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 1880 of 2017

¶77

In the light of the additional documents placed

¶78

on record before this Court for the first time, the respondents are entitled to refute the documents that are placed on record before this Court. The petitioner and respondents are reserved with liberty to lead limited evidence only in regard to entitlement of maintenance pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.309/2011 and final decree drawn in FDP

¶79

No.4/2015.

¶80

With these above observations, I proceed to

¶81

pass the following;

¶82

ORDER

¶83

(i) Both Criminal Petitions are allowed in part.

¶84

(ii) The orders under challenge dated 12.11.2013 passed in Crl.Misc.No.478/2012 as per Annexure-A and the orders dated 01.07.2016 passed in Crl.R.P.No.17/2014 and

¶85

¶86

NC: 2023:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 1879 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 1880 of 2017

¶87

Crl.R.P.No.9/2014 as per Annexure-B are hereby set aside.

¶88

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate.

¶89

(iv) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 05.09.2023.

¶90

(v) On 05.09.2023, the petitioner - husband shall pay the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of demand draft in the name of respondent No.4 (Hemavathi w/o Gnaneshamurthy).

¶91

(vi) Registry is directed to disburse an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited before this Court in favour of respondent No.4 (Hemavathi w/o Gnaneshamurthy) after securing proper identification.

¶92

(vii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

JUDGE

Sd/-

NBM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Gnaneshamurthy v. Anusha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gnaneshamurthy v. Anusha

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. Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Nagamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. D Disha Vs Sri. B C Hemanth

Shri Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Harsha Bobade Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences