Disposed

Sri Madhusudan Devarajan v. Smt Vanita M .K

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024CRL.RP/132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against confirmation of an order directing a father to pay his child's school fee under Section 20(d) of the Domestic Violence Act, following non-payment and cheque dishonour. The court found no error in the order, noted payment had been made, and disposed of the petition with liberty to argue capability in pending maintenance proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner granted liberty to contend on payment capability in pending C.Mis.No.90/2018.

Sri Madhusudan Devarajan Vs Smt Vanita M .K — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9540 CRL.RP No. 132 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 132 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MADHUSUDAN DEVARAJAN S/O LATE DEVARAJAN H.M. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT D.NO.43, SRINIVASA KRUPA GAYATHIRPURAM, 1^ST STAGE UDYAGIRI POST MYSURU - 571 430.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. GAURAV SUBRAMANYAM, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. VANITA M.K., W/O MADHUSUDHAN DEVARAJAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT D.NO.3076/02 AMMA GOKULAM PARK ROAD NIRMALA CONVENT ROAD MYSURU – 570002.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.08.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.207/2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT AT MYSORE WHICH CONFIRMED THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2020 ON APPLICATION U/S 20(d) OF D.V ACT PASSED BY THE HONBLE VI ADDL.I CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT AT MYSORE.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:9540 CRL.RP No. 132 of 2024

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

This revision petition is filed with regard to nonpayment of school fee of the child. Having taken note of nonpayment of amount and also bouncing of the Cheque given by the petitioner herein, claim was made before the Trial Court to pay the school fee of the child belonging to the petitioner. Hence, an application was filed before the Trial Court under Section 20(d) of the Domestic Violence Act and the Trial Court considered the same and there is no dispute with regard to the marriage and the fact that child is admitted to the school. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that in view of nonpayment of school fee, the School Authority directed to pay the amount. Hence, the Trial Court taking note of the fact that it is the duty of the father to meet the educational expenses of the child, observed that in view of non-payment of educational expenses, the future of the child should not be affected. Hence, ordered to pay the amount by allowing the application.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9540 CRL.RP No. 132 of 2024

¶25

Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is also having properties and those properties are purchased by the revision petitioner in the name of the respondent and respondent has also sold one of the properties. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that even the petitioner has also sold the property and all these aspects have to be considered while considering the matter on merits and still C.Mis.No.90/2018 is pending before the Trial Court and liberty is reserved to both the parties to urge their grounds with regard to the capability of the payment of the school fee by the respective parties. However, the question involved in this petition is only regard to earlier payment made by way Cheque on 25.07.2018 has bounced and not paid the school fee and the said fact is also considered by the Trial Court and also First Appellate Court, while considering the appeal. The Trial Court, while considering the application, allowed the application directing the petitioner to pay the amount within 15 days.

¶26

Having considered the reasoning given by the Trial

¶27

Court and also the First Appellate Court, the same is with regard to payment of school fee of the child of the petitioner.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9540 CRL.RP No. 132 of 2024

¶29

When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in passing an order directing the revision petition to meet the school fee of the child and it has been brought to notice of this Court that the petitioner has made the payment and hence, the matter does not survive for consideration.

¶30

Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to urge all his contentions in C.Mis.No.90/2018 which is pending before the Trial Court

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri Madhusudan Devarajan v. Smt Vanita M .K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Madhusudan Devarajan v. Smt Vanita M .K

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 K S Muthappa Vs Sri a P Dharmappa

H N Dayananda Vs State of Karnataka by

Veerendra M D Vs State of Karnataka

Shabana Taj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashok C Vs K Ramakrishna

Smt Nethra Narayan Vs Sri N J Murthy