A father challenged the trial court's order awarding Rs.5,000 monthly maintenance to his daughter under Section 125 Cr.PC, contending he was not her biological father. The High Court found the contention baseless since unchallenged documents showed him as her father and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:45495 CRL.P No. 5016 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5016 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka
SRI MAHESHWARAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 60 YEARS, COOLIE WORK R/AT KAREKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DIST DAVANAGERE - 577 001
(BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…PETITIONER
VEENA D/O SMT. HALAMMA AGED 21 YEARS, R/AT KAREKATTE VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DIST: DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2022, PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE I SPL.JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE IN CRL.RP.NO.2/2020, CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C CHANNAGIRI IN CRL.MISC.NO.61/2017.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
NC: 2024:KHC:45495 CRL.P No. 5016 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner being the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.61/2017 on the file of the learned Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri (hereafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity) is impugning the order dated 26.12.2017 allowing the petition and awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent herein, which was confirmed in Crl.RP No.2/2020 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'Sessions Court' for brevity) vide order dated 22.03.2022 and confirming the order passed by the trial Court.
“Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the Session Court suffers from perversity or illegality, which calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the ‘Negative’ for the following:
R E A S O N S
described as daughter of the petitioner herein. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Aadhaar Card of the mother of the respondent, wherein she is described as wife of the petitioner herein. Similarly, Aadhaar card pertaining to the respondent is produced as per Ex.P.3, wherein, she is shown as the daughter of the petitioner herein. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the SSLC marks card pertaining to the respondent, according to which, she was born on 12.02.2002 as the daughter of the petitionerMaheshwarappa. These clinching documents remain unchallenged before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner.
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Criminal petition is dismissed .
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
BH
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the maintenance orders confirmed by the Sessions Court suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maheshwarappa s/o Hanumanthappa
Veena d/o Smt. Halamma
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
