Allowed

Smt Ranjani @ Parvathamma v. Sri K R Manjunatha

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2023CRL.P/2299/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition challenged a revisional order that set aside a trial court’s low maintenance award by accepting unverified oral evidence of a lump sum payment despite the signed compromise letter lacking such specific recitation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the revisional court on 19.02.2014 was set aside, and the trial court’s order dated 04.04.2013 stating Rs.1,000/- maintenance was restored.

Smt Ranjani @ Parvathamma Vs Sri K R Manjunatha — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 2299 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2299 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RANJANI @ PARVATHAMMA WIFE OF H.K. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT POONADAHALLI VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107, MYSORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU H.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. K.R. MANJUNATHA SON OF KUBERA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEBBALU VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI, K.R. NAGARA TALUK-570019, MYSORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BASAVANNA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2014 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.314/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE.

¶13

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

¶14

2 - CRL.P No. 2299 of 2014

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 19.02.2014 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru (henceforth referred to as 'revisional Court' for short) in Crl.R.P.No.314/2013, whereby the revisional Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Periyapatna (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.Misc.No.179/2010.

¶17

The petitioner herein filed C.Misc.No.179/2010 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court claiming maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the respondent herein. The petition was contested by the respondent contending that it is the petitioner herein, who was cruel in the marriage and that she had disowned the respondent. He contended that the petitioner had filed C.Misc.No.547/2005, which was settled in terms of which, the petitioner had agreed to receive a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards full and final settlement of all claims of maintenance. He claimed that even after the payment of Rs.50,000/-, the petitioner has filed the present petition to harass him. He contended that he has aged

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 2299 of 2014

¶20

parents to look after and he has no means to pay any amount more than what is already paid to the petitioner.

¶21

Based on these contentions, the case was set down for trial. The petitioner was examined as PW.1 and she examined a witness as PW.2 and marked Exs.P1 to 4. The respondent was examined as RW.1 and he examined two witnesses as RW.2 and RW.3 and marked Exs.R1.

¶22

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the petitioner had earlier filed C.Misc.No.547/2005 for maintenance. It held that as per the settlement claimed by the respondent, Ex.R1 did not indicate that he had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, he contended that Ex.R1 was concocted for the purpose of the case. The Trial Court taking into account the income of the respondent, awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as maintenance to the petitioner.

¶23

Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent

¶24

filed Crl.R.P.No.314/2013 before the revisional Court. The revisional Court held that C.Misc.No.547/2005 was listed before

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 2299 of 2014

¶27

the Lok Adalat and the petitioner got the petition dismissed as settled out of the Court. It therefore, held that Ex.R1 was corroborated. The revisional Court further held that the petitioner had stated before the Trial Court that her signature was taken on blank bond paper by claiming that the land standing in the name of the respondent would be transferred to her name. However, such claim of the petitioner was not supported and therefore, the revisional Court held that the petitioner had indeed received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent towards full and final settlement of her claims for maintenance and therefore, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ex.R1 did not indicate that any amount much less, Rs.50,000/- was paid to the petitioner. He submitted that the revisional Court relied upon some evidence, which was not found in the record and held that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.50,000/-. In the absence of any material to show

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 2299 of 2014

¶32

that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the revisional Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that though Ex.R1 did not contain any recital that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid, however the evidence of PW.2, the lawyer, who drafted Ex.R1 established the same. He further submitted that RW.2 and RW.3 also deposed about the payment of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner and therefore, there is enough evidence to establish the payment of Rs.50,000/- in C.Misc.No.547/2005. He submits that at any rate, the petitioner having withdrawn C.Misc.No.547/2005, it is apparent that she had received a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶34

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶35

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed C.Misc.No.547/2005 for maintenance, which was contested by

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 2299 of 2014

¶38

the respondent herein. This petition was withdrawn as settled out of Court on 22.09.2007. Ex.R1 was though claimed to be consent letter to withdraw C.Misc.No.547/2005, there is no mention of payment of any amount much less, Rs.50,000/towards claim of maintenance of the petitioner herein. On the contrary, what is mentioned in Ex.R1 is,

¶39

"F M¦àUÉ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ fÃªÀ£ÁA±ÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¤«ÄäAzÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

¶40

E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤«ÄäAzÀ fÃªÀ£ÁA±ÀzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ºÀt §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ M¦à F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ £À£Àß DvÀä ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµÀ¢AzÀ F M¦àUÉ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

¶41

The aforesaid recital would indicate that some amount of maintenance was paid. However, it is not found whether a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, the revisional Court ought to have carefully considered the claim of the petitioner based on the available material rather than relying on the evidence of PW.2 more particularly, when the petitioner was an illiterate lady.

¶42

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 19.02.2014 passed by the III

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 2299 of 2014

¶45

Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.R.P.No.314/2013 is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Periyapatna in

¶46

C.Misc.No.179/2010 is restored.

¶47

The Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial Court as well as the revisional Court records.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

PMR

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt Ranjani @ Parvathamma v. Sri K R Manjunatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ranjani @ Parvathamma v. Sri K R Manjunatha

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

Dr Manjunatha Y C Vs State by Gulpet Police Station

Smt. Saraswathamma Vs Shri R. Ramachandra

Sri K C Yathish Kumar Vs Anti Corruption Bureau

Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mohammed Shamsuddin Khan Vs State by Koramangala

M/S. Pramila Santhosh Land Developers and Builders Vs State of Karnataka