Dismissed

Sri Venkatesha v. Smt Lakshmi Devi

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2023CRL.RP/494/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the plea by a husband challenging an order awarding monthly maintenance and damages to his wife. The Court found no reason to interfere with the lower courts' findings based on documentary evidence and the petitioner's contradictory contentions regarding their relationship.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is dismissed as it lacks merit, upholding the maintenance order.

Sri Venkatesha Vs Smt Lakshmi Devi — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 494 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VENKATESHA S/O VENKATESHALU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, EMPLOYEE IN MUNICIPALITY R/O JAI BHEEMA NAGARA, NEAR RANJAPPA CIRCLE, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O VENAKTESHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O JAIBHEEMA NAGARA, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

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 26.09.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.5027/2016 FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE SECTION 28(1) OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT AND SECTION 374 OF CR.P.C.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has assailed the correctness of the order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadradavthi in C.Misc.No.1/2012 awarding a sum of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the respondent. The petitioner has also assailed the judgment dated 26.09.2018 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi in Crl.A.No.5027/2016, by which, the order of the trial Court was confirmed.

¶21

The respondent submitted a complaint before the Protection Officer under the Protection of Women from Demotic Violation Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2005' for short) for a protection order under Section 18 and for monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the Act, 2005. The respondent claimed that she was given in marriage to the petitioner and that they had 2 daughters and a son from the marriage. She alleged that the petitioner did not make any arrangement for her maintenance and maintenance of her children. She claimed that the petitioner had developed an illicit relationship with a lady named Anjamma and that he had

¶22

¶23

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

¶24

totally neglected to maintain respondent and her children. She claimed that the petitioner was a sweeper in the City Municipal Corporation and was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. She therefore sought for an order for maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the petition and claimed that he was no way concerned with the respondent. He claimed that he had married Anjamma and that he had a daughter from the said marriage. He claimed that during the year 2003-2006, he was suffering from mental disorder and was availing medical facilities at Andhra Pradesh. He claimed that during his stay at Andhra Pradesh, the respondent had trespassed into the house and started residing there and claimed the status of wife. He contended that the respondent was not his wife and was attempting to exploit the situation laying a claim to his income. He contended that his salary was only a sum of Rs.1,951/- and that he had to maintain his wife-Smt.Anjamma and their daughter. Based on these contentions, the trial Court set down the case for trial. The respondent was examined as PW.1 and she marked Exs.P1

¶25

¶26

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

¶27

to P18. The petitioner was examined as RW.1 and a witness was examined as RW.2 and they marked Ex.R1.

¶28

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

¶29

trial Court held that the respondent had established that she was the wife of the petitioner and therefore, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation under Section 22 of the Act, 2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.5027/2016, which was dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

¶32

there was no relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in awarding maintenance. He submitted that Ex.R1 is a Medical Certificate, which indicated the mental health of the petitioner and therefore, the contention urged in his defense was probable.

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶36

submitted that the petitioner had admitted that the respondent had lodged a complaint against him before the Women Police in the year 2003. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner admitted Exs.P15 to P17, which are the photographs where the petitioner and the respondent were found. He contended that the birth certificate at Exs.P5 to P7 contained the name of the petitioner as the father of the children of the respondent. Further he claimed that the Voter ID and the ration card also indicated the name of the petitioner and the respondent as husband and wife and these documents were sufficient to establish the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. He also contended that the petitioner is bound to maintain the respondent regardless of the fact whether petitioner and the respondent were married, if they have lived together as husband & wife for a long period. He contended that there is ample proof to establish that the petitioner and the respondent were living as husband and wife under the same roof for a substantial period and therefore, even assuming that there was no relationship between the

¶37

¶38

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

¶39

petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner is bound to maintain the respondent.

¶40

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

¶41

It is evident from the judgment of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that the petitioner had claimed that the respondent had trespassed into his house and claimed to be his wife. Even if the petitioner was mentally not well as per Ex.D1, that in itself does not justify his contention that the respondent had trespassed into the official quarters given to him. The petitioner did nothing to complain the concerned officials about the alleged trespass by respondent. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that the respondent had lodged a complaint against him before the Children and Women Development Officer in the year 2003 itself. He also did not dispute the photographs found at Exs.P15 to P17 where both the petitioner and respondent were found together. He also did not dispute Ex.P5 to P7, which are the birth certificates of the

¶42

¶43

CRL.RP No. 494 of 2019

¶44

children where the names of the petitioner and respondent are found as father and mother. The Voter ID as well as the Ration Card also bears the names of the petitioner and the respondent as husband and wife. These documents categorically indicate that the petitioner and the respondent were husband and wife. In view of the strange contentions urged by the petitioner in his statement, it is quite probable that the petitioner had neglected to maintain the respondent and therefore, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were justified in awarding maintenance of a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

¶45

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

¶46

In that view of the matter, this revision petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed .

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

NR/-

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri Venkatesha v. Smt Lakshmi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkatesha v. Smt Lakshmi Devi

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 Revanna Siddappa G Kumbar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. H.S. Manjula Vs Smt. Sujatha

Sri. Mohammed Vs Sri. Abdul Salam

P S Samiulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Arun Kumar v M Vs State of Karnataka through P S I

Shashiraj @ Shashikumar Vs State of Karnataka