Dismissed¶¶82

M Uday Kumar v. Master C U Yadunandan

Maintenance – Minor son

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2025CRL.P/2391/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125(1) CrPC maintenance to minor son from father; quashing sought under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 226; revision under Section 397 CrPC dismissed with costs; plea of full and final settlement under compromise decree dated 12.07.2016 (divorce by mutual consent) rejected as compromise silent on minor's maintenance; Rs.4,000/- per month until majority upheld; Karnataka High Court (Channapatna/Ramanagara courts below); respondent served but unrepresented; CRL.P No.2391 of 2024, decided 21.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the maintenance direction of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-minor son, as confirmed by the Revisional Court, stands undisturbed. ¶¶82

M Uday Kumar Vs Master C U Yadunandan — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2379 CRL.P NO.2391 OF 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2391 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M. UDAY KUMAR S/O LATE MUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.A/667, SRI. CHOORNADABEEDI, M.G. ROAD CROSS, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGAR - 562 160.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MASTER C.U. YADUNANDAN S/O M. UDAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. K. RUKHMINI @ ASHA R/AT RAJA KEMPEGOWDA BADAVANE, 6^TH CROSS, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGAR - 562 160.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO QUASH/SETASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02^ND SEPTEMBER, 2021 PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.10/2021 BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA AND ALSO TO SETASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09^TH OCTOBER, 2018 PASSED IN CMIS.NO.565/2016 BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT CHANNAPATNA.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:2379 CRL.P NO.2391 OF 2024

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the father of the respondent against the order dated 09^th October, 2018 passed in C.mis No.565/2016 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Channapatna, wherein the petition filed by the respondent under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be allowed and direction has been issued to the petitioner herein to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of the petition till the respondent attains majority, as well as against the impugned order dated 02^nd September, 2021 passed in Crl. R.P. No.10/2021 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶21

Respondent having been served with notice of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:2379 CRL.P NO.2391 OF 2024

¶24

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent is none other than the son of the petitioner and Smt. T.K. Asharani @ K. Rukmini, their marriage having been solemnized on 27^th June, 2004 at Vishwakarma Samudhaya Bhavana, Kallikamba Temple, Kote, Channapatna. It is the matter of record that pursuant to the compromise between the petitioner and the aforesaid T.K. Asharani @ K. Rukmini, their marriage has been dissolved by a compromise decree dated 12^th July, 2016 by way of Divorce by mutual consent. Subsequently, the respondentminor son of the petitioner represented by her mother Smt. T.K. Asharani @ K. Rukmini filed the petition seeking maintenance under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was allowed by the Trial Court, by impugned order dated 09^th October, 2018 by holding as under:

¶25

"O R D E R S

¶26

This is a petition is filed claiming monthly maintenance by the minor son against his father under section 125(1) of Cr.PC. The respondent though has appeared, has not resisted the petition.

¶27

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the son of the respondent. The petitioner is represented by his natural guardian. His mother and respondent are separated. The petitioner is not taken care of by the respondent.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:2379 CRL.P NO.2391 OF 2024

¶30

3. The respondent has not filed statement of objections.

¶31

4. On perusal of the materials on record, the shot point arise for my consideration:

¶32

"Whether the petitioner is entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/-?"

¶33

And my answer is Partly In The Affirmative for the following assigned:

¶34

REASONS

¶35

5. The petitioner is a minor and is represented by his natural guardian i.e his mother.

¶36

6. PW-1 in her evidence has stated that the respondent and petitioner are father and son in relation. The mother and father of the petitioner seperated. The petitioner resides with his mother. His mother has received Rs.2,00,000/- as the permanent alimony. However, the petitioner is deprived of his right. The respondents is not providing any financial support.

¶37

7. The respondent has not contested the case and has not availed the opportunity to disprove the case of the petitioner. The entire testimony of PW-1 stands unchallenged.

¶38

8. Section 125 of Cr.P.C mandates a person having sufficient means maintain his minor child. In the present case the petitioner has produced Ex.P11 to P.14 to show that the respondent is having properties and fetches income. I have perused these documents carefully. Though RTC extracts are produced, it is difficult to ascertain the income derived from it. Further the house properties standing in the name of respondent is fetching income or not cannot be deduced form the demand register extract.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:2379 CRL.P NO.2391 OF 2024

¶41

9. Having said no, it is cannot be denied that the respondent being the father of the minor petitioner is having the duty to maintain him.

¶42

10. From the petition, it appears the petitioner is of 9-10 years age. His education, food and other expensed has to be considered while awarding the maintenance. Keeping the personal needs of the petitioner in mind, Rs.4000/- is ordered as the monthly maintenance payable by the respondent until the petitioner attains majority. Accordingly, I answer the point party in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

The petition is allowed in part with costs.

¶45

The respondent is directed to pay Rs.4000/- as the monthly maintenance from the date of the petition until he attains majority."

¶46

As can be seen from the impugned order, the petitionerfather was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent-minor son till he attains majority.

¶47

The petitioner-father challenged the aforesaid impugned order in Crl.R.P.No.10/2021, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 02^nd September, 2021,

¶48

by holding as under:

¶49

"ORDERS ON REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF Cr.PC.

¶50

M. Uday Kumar S/o. Late Muthappa, the respondent of proceedings in C.Misc.No.565/2016 prefers this revision petition u/s 397 of Cr.PC challenging the legality and correctness of final

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:2379 CRL.P NO.2391 OF 2024

¶53

orders dated 09.10.2018 passed in the said proceedings by the learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna.

¶54

2. The facts in brief leading to the present petition are as follows:

¶55

The revision petitioner M.Uday Kumar and K.Rukmini @ Asha were married on 27.06.2004. That in the wedlock, the minor respondent C.U.Yadanandan was born. As the relationship of revision petitioner and K.Rukmini @ Asha being not cordial and on account of differences among them, the said marriage of revision petitioner and K.Rukmini @ Asha was dissolved. That since then, it is K.Rukmini @ Asha who has been looking after the minor respondent. That the revision petitioner having neglected the minor respondent without any payment of maintenance amount, the minor respondent being represented by his mother and Natural Guardian, preferred the petition in C.Misc.No.565/2016 by invoking Sec.125 of CrPC seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/-.

¶56

3. That the revision petitioner herein having not filed his statement of objections, the trial court has recorded the evidence of minor respondent and basing upon the material available before it, was pleased to allow the petition in part by directing the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/ to the minor respondent.

¶57

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned final order dated 09.10.2018, the revision petitioner prefers the present revision petition on the following grounds:

¶58

That the impugned order is false and baseless; that the cross-examination has not been properly appreciated; that basing on the provisions of law as contemplated u/s 125 of CrPC, the

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:2379 CRL.P NO.2391 OF 2024

¶61

trial court has passed the impugned order; that the trial court has neglected the compromise petition dated 12.07.2016 and its compromise and also the fact of payment of Rs.2 Lakhs by the revision petitioner. By averring so interalia, the revision petitioner prays for interference of this court with the impugned final order.

¶62

5. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner has repeated the grounds of revision petition besides mentioning that the trial court has neglected the full and final settlement made by the revision petitioner and therefore that the revision petition be allowed.

¶63

6. The above said pleading of the parties hereto give raise to the following points for consideration:

¶64

1) Is there any scope to interfere with the impugned final order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the trial court calling upon the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/ to the minor respondent herein?

¶65

2) What order?

¶66

7. This court has perused the materials available on record and assigns the following:

¶67

REASONS

¶68

8. In the case on hand, the revision petitioner does not dispute the relationship between himself and the minor respondent. Therefore, there is no scope to discuss in respect of the said relationship.

¶69

9. It is the say of revision petitioner that the M.C petition filed by the mother of minor respondent was ended in compromise. That by virtue of compromise, revision petitioner had already paid Rs.2 Lakhs as full and final settlement towards

¶70

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:2379 CRL.P NO.2391 OF 2024

¶72

the maintenance of both mother and son and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶73

10. To substantiate his arguments, the revision petitioner adduced the document of certified copy of compromise petition filed u/O XXIII Rule 3 of CPC in the proceedings of MC No.3/2016. The para No.2 of compromise petition filed u/O XXIII Rule 3 of CPC dated 12.07.2016 reveals that the present revision petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs as permanent alimony towards the maintenance of K.Rukmini @ Asha, the petitioner of MC No.3/2016. But the averments of compromise petition are very much silent with regard to maintenance of present minor respondent. Therefore, this court is of the view that the contents of compromise petition as adduced before this court by the revision petitioner falsify the say of revision petitioner to the effect that he had already paid permanent alimony of Rs.2 Lakhs in respect of the minor respondent and also in respect of the mother of minor respondent.

¶74

11. As the relationship of parties hereto being not disputed and as the contents of compromise petition dated 12.07.2016 filed in the proceedings of MC No.3/2016 being very much silent in respect of maintenance of minor respondent herein, this court is of the view that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and that there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the subject matter of point No.1 is answered in the Negative and this court proceeds to pass the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

The revision petition filed u/s 397 of CrPC by the revision petitioner is hereby dismissed on cost of Rs.5,000/- and the cost shall be paid to the minor respondent. Thus the impugned order passed by the

¶77

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:2379 CRL.P NO.2391 OF 2024

¶79

learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, in C.Misc.No.565/2016 dated 09.10.2018 is hereby confirmed.

¶80

Send copy of this order to the trial court forthwith."

¶81

A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Trial

¶82

Court as well as the Revisional Court will clearly indicate that, both the Courts have not committed any illegality or infirmity in awarding maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the respondentminor son payable by the petitioner and as such, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶83

SD/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶84

ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

M Uday Kumar v. Master C U Yadunandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Uday Kumar v. Master C U Yadunandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu @ Bommanahalli Babu @ Ayub Khan Vs State by Kengeri P S

Ms Subhra Porwal Vs State of Karnataka

Jayakumar Raju (in Fir) Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt Mamatha S Vs State of Karnataka

B K Manju Vs Stae by Bagalur Police Station

Smt Sumithra Vs State of Karnataka