Partly allowed

Mr. Vishwanath v. Smt. Mangala

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2024CRL.P/4321/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed in part the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. setting aside the interim maintenance for the minor child. Directed the petitioner to pay ₹3,000/month to the wife, holding that maintenance for the child is pending until the main trial determines parentage.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 05.08.2022 granting ₹2,000/month to the minor child is set aside. Petitioner directed to pay ₹3,000/month to the wife until disposal of the main case.

Mr. Vishwanath Vs Smt. Mangala — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:3286 CRL.P No. 4321 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4321 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. VISHWANATH S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A MASTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, HENNAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 105.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.R.BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. MANGALA W/O VISHWANATH, (UNDER DISPUTE) D/O CHANNANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶13

MASTER VEDANTH S/O VISHWANATH, (UNDER DISPUTE) AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, SINCE 2^ND PETITIONER IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER VIZ., SMT. MANGALA AS LEGAL AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, BOTH ARE R/AT BASKARACHARI BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, OPP. PF OFFICE,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:3286 CRL.P No. 4321 of 2023

¶16

8^TH CROSS, SINGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V. VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN CRL.MISC.886/2022 GRANTING INTERIM MAINTENANCE TO THE RESPONDENTS ON I.A.1/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE I.A.NO.1/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.886/2022, whereby the trial court has granted the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 under Section 125(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶23

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

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is disputing the marriage with the respondent

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3286 CRL.P No. 4321 of 2023

¶26

No.1 as well as the birth of the child said to be born out of wedlock. The learned counsel has further contended that the child is not born to the petitioner and for that, the petitioner filed an application referring the same to the FSL. The FSL report reveals that the petitioner is not the biological father to the child at all. Therefore, the petitioner is not required to pay maintenance to respondent No.2 herein. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents objected the petition contending that the matter may be disposed of by giving a direction to the trial court to accept the DNA report by recording the evidence of the doctors.

¶28

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

¶29

The main contention of the petitioner is that he is not the biological father of the respondent No.2-child. The petitioner is also disputing his marriage with respondent No.1. Therefore, the trial court is required to conduct trial by examining the witnesses. The DNA report reveals that the child is not born to the petitioner and respondent No.1. Therefore,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:3286 CRL.P No. 4321 of 2023

¶32

the question of granting maintenance to respondent No.2-child does not arise. Therefore, I am of the view that pending consideration of the petition and until disposal of the main petition, respondent No.2-child is not entitled for maintenance.

¶33

In the light of the above, the petition is allowed in part.

¶34

The order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.886/2022, granting Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2, is hereby set aside. However, the petitioner is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1, until disposal of the main case by the trial Court.

¶35

The impugned order passed by the trial court is accordingly modified.

¶36

CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 CT:SK

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

Mr. Vishwanath v. Smt. Mangala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vishwanath v. Smt. Mangala

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

Ghouse Mohammedeen Vs State

Sri H B Harish Vs State of Karnataka by

Narayanagowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Syed Khamar @ Syed Khamar Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish S M Vs State by Byatarayanapura

Mahesh @ Mahesha. M Vs State by Chamarajnagar Town Ps