R Lakshmakka Vs H Siddesh

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTHARAO R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HIRIYUR IN CRL.MISC.NO.179/2015 AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2022 PASSED BY THE 2^ND ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.RP.NO.64/2019 BY ENHANCING/AWARDING THE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF 25,000 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶14

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTHARAO R., ADVOCATE)

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:1417 CRL.P No. 26 of 2023

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This petition by the wife is directed against the impugned order dated 19.02.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.179/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur (for short “the Trial Court”) and the impugned order dated 17.08.2022 passed in Crl.R.P.No.64/2019 by the 2^nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short “the Revisional Court”), whereby the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court directed payment maintenance of Rs.4,000/- in favour of the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband.

¶21

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

¶22

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the salary certificate dated 17.10.2022 in relation to the respondent-husband in order to point out that the total gross salary of the respondent was Rs.48,849/- and the net salary was Rs.29,893/- and since the petitioner-wife had no children out of her wedlock with the respondent-husband, she is entitled to maintenance of Rs.12,000/per month as against Rs.4,000/- per month awarded by both the

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:1417 CRL.P No. 26 of 2023

¶25

Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court and as such, the impugned orders deserve to be modified by directing enhancement of maintenance to the petitioner-wife. It is also submitted that the respondent-husband owns and possesses agricultural land and has income from the same, which warrants enhancement of maintenance in favour of respondent-husband by the petitionerwife.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the documents produced by the petitioner-wife in the present petition will indicate that the aforesaid salary certificate at Annexure-B dated 27.10.2022 was not produced before the Trial Court or before the Revisional Court for the purpose of assessing/quantifying the maintenance payable to the wife. Under these circumstances, in order to enable the Revisional Court to reconsider the matter afresh, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the criminal petition and remit the matter back to the Revisional Court for reconsideration, afresh in accordance with law.

¶28

In the result, I pass the following:

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:1417 CRL.P No. 26 of 2023

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶33

(ii) The impugned order dated 17.08.2022 passed in Crl.R.P.No.64/2019 by the 2^nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is hereby set aside.

¶34

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Revisional Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶36

BMC

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

R Lakshmakka v. H Siddesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Lakshmakka v. H Siddesh

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

Smt Hamsaveni Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Naima Akthar Nagaria Vs State of Karnataka

P Ramamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Thanzeer Vs State by Uppinangady Police Station

Sri C Satisha Vs Sri Venakteshmurthy T

Ramesh a Vs the State of Karnataka