Allowed

Sri.Golk Sardar S/O Pullion Sardar v. Kajol W/O Samaresh Paul

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024CRL.P/201297/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband's Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition against maintenance of Rs.2,500 per month awarded to wife under Section 125. High Court found evidence that wife lived in adultery and remarried, disqualifying her under Section 125(4) and (5); set aside both orders and dismissed her maintenance petition.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance orders dated 18.02.2017 and 17.08.2019 set aside; wife's Section 125 petition dismissed.

Sri.Golk Sardar S/O Pullion Sardar Vs Kajol W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6774 CRL.P No. 201297 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201297 OF 2019 (482)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.GOLK SARDAR S/O PULLION SARDAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O R.H. COLONY, NO.4, TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KIRANKUMAR KALLUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI

¶14

Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶15

KAJOL W/O SAMARESH PAUL AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C/O SHEEP SARDAR, R/O. R.H. CAMP NO.4, TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 10.09.2024)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.08.2019 IN CRL.R.P.NO.30/2017 PASSED BY LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, RAICHUR AND ORDER DATED 18.02.2017 IN PASSED IN CRL. MISC.NO. 173/2010 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SINDHANUR.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6774 CRL.P No. 201297 of 2019

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN)

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner-husband under

¶26

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash impugned order for granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to the respondent-wife for Rs.2,500/- in the Crl.Misc. No.173/2010 and the same was upheld by the II-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Crl.R.P.No.30/2017 dated 17.08.2019.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Service of notice in respect of respondent-wife is held sufficient.

¶29

The case of the respondent-wife before the Magistrate is that she has filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. alleging that she has married the respondent about 20 years back in Dathola village, Dist.Ranaghad of West Bengal State. After the marriage, she went to the

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6774 CRL.P No. 201297 of 2019

¶31

house of the respondent for some time and marriage was consummated. They lived happily for a period of 10 years and she gave birth to a female child by name Neela, she was given in marriage and she residing with her husband. After lapse of 10 years of marriage, the respondent addicted to bad habits like consummation of alcohol, playing of cards, mataka etc., and not maintaining the petitioner, even though he is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioner. She has also stated that he has having land Sy.No.114/62 measuring 4 acres 35 guntas at Alabanur village, Taluka Sindhanur and he is having 1 acres share in the said land and he is receiving Rs.1.00 lakh annual income. Therefore, petitioner required atleast Rs.3,000/- per month for maintaining herself. Hence, she has filed the petition for maintenance.

¶32

The respondent-husband appeared and filed statement of objection stating that the marriage was held between the petitioner and respondent in the year 1987. Thereafter, the petitioner considered as bad character and

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6774 CRL.P No. 201297 of 2019

¶34

respondent gave divorce to the petitioner as per their custom and rituals prevailing in their community. Their marriage came to be seized and her age is falsely shown as 33 years but she is more than 45 years. After three years of marriage, the respondent noticed she is bad character and having intimacy with so many persons. She is not residing with the respondent, she went to Kolkatta and remarried to one Samaresh Paul and out of their wedlock she gave birth to a child son-Sanju Paul, he is aged about 11 years. The petitioner residing with one Samaresh Paul till 2008. Later she had illegal contact with

¶35

one Sip Sadar of R.H.No.4 last one year and she is residing with him. Subsequent to 1990 this respondent married some other lady and having three children and it is contended that the petitioner was filed malicious petition and abnormal conduct living adultery, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition filed by the wife.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6774 CRL.P No. 201297 of 2019

¶37

To prove her case, petitioner-wife examined

¶38

herself as PW.1 and examined another witness as PW.2 and no documents were marked. On behalf of respondent, he himself examined as RW.1 and his daughter-Neela was examined as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R8. After hearing the documents, the Trial Court allowed the petition in part by awarding Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance. Being aggrieved with the same, the respondent-husband filed revision petition before the Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.30/2017, where the petitioner-wife placed ex-parte and the Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition by upholding the order. Hence, the petitioner-husband is before this Court.

¶39

On hearing the arguments and on careful reading of the evidence on record, the relationship of the petitioner-wife with respondent-husband is not in dispute. Their marriage was held in the year 1987 also is not dispute. Out of their marriage, RW.2-Neela was born and she was grown and married some other person.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6774 CRL.P No. 201297 of 2019

¶41

The main contention of the petitioner-wife is

¶42

that after three years respondent addicted bad habits like consuming alcohol, playing cards and mataka etc., and not maintaining the petitioner-wife since 10 years she is residing with parents house.

¶43

Per contra, the contention of respondent is that after three years she has left the company of the respondent and become bad character and she went to Kolkatta married to one Samaresh Paul in Kolkatta a child also born to them. Both of them were residing separately till some time. Later the brother of this respondenthusband went to Kolkatta and brought her back to RHNo.4 and he started residing with her and the petitioner was living adultery, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

¶44

Of course the Magistrate considering the evidence on record and ordered for Rs.2,500/- per month, but totally ignored the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and specifically RW.2 has mentioned that her mother-

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6774 CRL.P No. 201297 of 2019

¶46

petitioner was living adultery with one Samaresh Paul and she begotten to a child born out of their wedlock, which is name called Sanju Paul, he is 11 years old.

¶47

Subsequently it is also seen from the evidence of RW.1 that the brother-Sip Sardar of the respondenthusband went to Kolkatta and brought the said petitionerwife to Camp and he is started residing with her. When the respondent questioned the brother, he has stated that they are living together as husband and wife. Hence, he has filed complaint before the police, which was registered as C.C.No.143/2010 against his brother and this aspect was not seriously disputed by the petitioner-wife where she is residing with brother of the respondent after coming back from the Kolkatta and previous to that she was married one Samaresh Paul and giving birth to a childSanju Paul. The very daughter-RW.2 who born to petitioner and respondent was categorically deposed that her mother is bad character, she is living adultery with so many people and married to one Samaresh Paul, later

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6774 CRL.P No. 201297 of 2019

¶49

living in relationship with the brother of the respondent

¶50

i.e. her uncle.

¶51

The both Courts below have failed to consider the adultery life of the petitioner, except the marriage and a child born to them was admitted until 1990 and thereafter the petitioner is not residing with respondent and not residing separately in her parents house, in order to get maintenance from the respondent.

¶52

The both the Courts below failed to consider sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. where the previsions of sub-section 4 and 5 says no wife shall be entitled to receive any maintenance or interim maintenance expenses etc. if she is living adultery or without any sufficient cause refused to live with the respondent and living separately with mutual consent and sub-section 5 also a similar where the petitioner-wife is living adultery and refused to live with the husband, she is not entitled for any maintenance and the Magistrate can cancel the order of maintenance.

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6774 CRL.P No. 201297 of 2019

¶54

On careful reading of the evidence on record especially RWs.1 and 2, which clearly shows the petitioner living adultery and married to some other person Samaresh Paul having a child Sanju Paul and subsequently she is living adultery with very own brother of the respondent one Sip Sardar and he has also filed complaint against very own brother, which clearly establishes the petitioner was living adultery. Therefore, as per provisions of Section 125 (4 and 5) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner-wife is not entitled for any maintenance. Both the Courts committed error in granting maintenance to the petitionerwife. Therefore, both the orders are liable to be set aside.

¶55

Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

¶56

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The order of maintenance granted by the II-Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindhanur in Crl.Misc.No.173/2010 dated 18.02.2017, which is upheld by the II-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Raichur in

¶57

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6774 CRL.P No. 201297 of 2019

¶58

Crl.R.P.No.30/2017 dated 17.08.2019 are

¶59

hereby set aside.

¶60

iii) The petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-wife in Crl.Misc.No.173/2010 is hereby dismissed.

¶61

Sd/(K NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶62

SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8 CT:SI

Sri.Golk Sardar S/O Pullion Sardar v. Kajol W/O Samaresh Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Golk Sardar S/O Pullion Sardar v. Kajol W/O Samaresh Paul

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

Shashikanth S/O Ramchadrabedge Vs Nagendra S/O Shankar Rao Kadappa

M Pradeep and Ors. Vs State of Karnataka and Anr.

Manikantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Dnyaneshwar Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Zakeer @ Zakeerhusen Vs the State through Cadachan Ps and Anr.

Srimant@ Shreemanth Vs the State