Dismissed

Manjunatha a v. Smt M Shruthi

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2023CRL.RP/437/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs.4,000/- each granted to minor children. The Court held that paternity disputes do not preclude interim maintenance at this stage, especially given the paltry amount awarded.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; any deposit amount released to respondent No.1 as guardian of respondents Nos.2 and 3.

Manjunatha a Vs Smt M Shruthi — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 437 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 437 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATHA A., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O ASWATHNARAYANA, R/AT NO.120, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND F CROSS, RAMAIAH LAYOUT, KACHARAKANAHALLI BANGALORE-560084

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. ANITHA B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANIL GHOSH G.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. M. SHRUTHI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS WIFE OF A. MANJUNATH

¶13

HARSHEL

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SON OF SHRUTHI, MINOR,

¶16

AGED ABOUT ONE YEAR,

¶17

HARSHIN

¶18

DAUGHTER OF SHRUTHI, MINOR, AGED ABOUT ONE YEAR

¶19

ALL RESIDING AT NO.18/10, C48, 22 CROSS, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGARA,

¶20

¶21

CRL.RP No. 437 of 2022

¶22

KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560023

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MMTC-V AT BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.150/2018 PASSED ON I.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 AND THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1640/2019 AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner being the husband of respondent No.1 has challenged the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-V), Bangalore (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short), in Crl.Misc.No.150/2018, granting interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 06.01.2022 passed by the LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions

¶28

¶29

CRL.RP No. 437 of 2022

¶30

Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.1640/2019, by which the order passed by the Trial Court is confirmed.

¶31

The respondents had initiated proceedings under

¶32

Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 2005' for short) alleging domestic violence by the petitioner herein and also sought for a protection order and for compensation and maintenance. In the said proceedings, the respondents filed an application under Section 23(2) of the Act of 2005 for a direction to the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month. They contended that the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month and was also a broker earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. However, they claimed that he had neglected to maintain the respondents. Per contra, the petitioner claimed that he was not in possession of any property and that the one mentioned by the respondents herein was mired in O.S.No.175/2018 before the Civil Court, Malur and that his income was only a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. He also claimed that the respondent No.1 was earning a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as rent from the properties situated at

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No. 437 of 2022

¶35

Bhuvaneshwarinagara, Kempapura Agrahara, Bangalore and Magadi Road, Old Toll-Gate, Next to Petrol Bunk, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. He therefore contended that the respondents are capable of maintaining themselves. He also disputed the paternity of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and contended that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were conceived through IVF procedure and that he had not given his semen sample for the IVF procedure and therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not his children and were therefore not entitled to claim any maintenance from him.

¶36

The Trial Court after considering the material on record, directed the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, it did not pass any order to pay any maintenance to the respondent No.1. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Crl.A.No.1640/2019, which too was dismissed.

¶37

Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶38

¶39

CRL.RP No. 437 of 2022

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶41

that when the paternity of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is in dispute, the Trial Court committed an error in awarding maintenance.

¶42

The records disclose that the respondent Nos.2 and

¶43

3 are twins aged one year. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were conceived through IVF procedure. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to establish before the Trial Court that he had not given his sample semen for the IVF procedure and that he is not the father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. At the interim stage of the proceedings, the petitioner cannot expect the Court to go into the larger question such as paternity of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is for the petitioner to establish the same before the Trial Court. Therefore, having regard to the fact that a paltry sum of Rs.4,000/- per month is awarded as maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3 each, this Court does not find it necessary to interfere with the said finding.

¶44

Hence, the revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶45

¶46

CRL.RP No. 437 of 2022

¶47

In view of dismissal of the revision petition, pending I.A.,

¶48

if any, also stands dismissed.

¶49

Any amount in deposit before this Court or before the Trial Court shall be released to respondent No.1 as the guardian of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

PMR

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Manjunatha a v. Smt M Shruthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha a v. Smt M Shruthi

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

Naga Vs State of Karnataka

Mahadevaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raghuram Vs M/S S S Enterprises

Sri Mahesh Kumar Vs State by

Sri. R. Kantharaja Vs Sri. P. Nagaraja

Muthoot Finance Limited Vs State of Karnataka