Smt. Nalinakshi K.R Vs Sri. Raju P S/O Late Palani

SMT. NALINAKSHI K.R AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O RAJU P R/AT SHIVASHAKTHI NILAYA CHENNAKESHAVA NAGARA NEAR CHURCH, BHANDRAPURA SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PRESENTLY R/AT KEMMURU HOUSE YENENALLU VILLAGE AND POST SULLIA TALUK, D.K-574238

¶11

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. DHARMAPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. RAJU P S/O LATE PALANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT CHENNAKESHAVA NAGARA NEAR CHURCH, BHADRAPURA SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S.K, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:15005 CRL.RP No. 122 of 2024

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2022 IN CRL.A.NO.5004/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K. MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2019 IN CRL.MISC.NO.(PWDV) NO.66/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT SULLIA D.K, AND CONSEQUENTLY CRL.MISC.(PWDV) NO.66/2016 MAY BE ALLOWED.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section

¶24

401 Cr.P.C, the petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent is seeking modification of the order passed by

¶25

the trial Court granting maintenance at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeal filed by her and prays to allow the petition filed by her in entirety, including enhancement of the maintenance.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, parties are

¶27

referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:15005 CRL.RP No. 122 of 2024

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the

¶31

legally wedded wife of the respondent. They are having two daughters aged 18 and 14 years. They led a happy married life all these years. Since recently, the respondent started causing physical and mental harassment to the petitioner. He has failed to provide their maintenance, including paying educational expenses of the children. Even though the petitioner filed a complaint to the concerned police, it was of no avail. On 13.01.2016 at 5.00 p.m, under the influence of alcohol, the respondent assaulted the petitioner and her children and drew them out of the matrimonial home. The petitioner is not able to maintain herself. The respondent is working in KPTCL/MESCOM. The petitioner requires maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month and ₹15,000/- each for her daughters and ₹5,000/- for other expenses. She also sought other reliefs.

¶32

The respondent appeared before the trial Court and filed statement of objections, admitting the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15005 CRL.RP No. 122 of 2024

¶34

relationship between the parties and also the fact that they are having two daughters and that till recently lead their happy married life. However, the other allegations are denied, he has contended that since from the date of marriage, he is taking care of the petitioner and their children, according to his financial status. Trouble started when the respondent questioned the petitioner about her relationship with the brother of the respondent. In fact, she was questioned before the Kodimbal Swamiji, wherein she admitted this fact. From this point onwards, the petitioner started harassing and troubling the respondent. She has left the matrimonial home on her own along with the children. She made the children go against the respondent and hate him. Only to harass the respondent, she has filed this petition.

¶35

Enquiry is held, wherein the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1.

¶36

The respondent has also examined himself as RW-1 and relied upon Exs.R1 to R33.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15005 CRL.RP No. 122 of 2024

¶38

Heard arguments of both sides and perused the

¶39

record.

¶40

Thus the petitioner sought maintenance for herself and her daughters, making several allegations against the respondent. The cross-examination of the petitioner reveals that before the marriage, the petitioner was working in a Government Junior College and left the job after her marriage. It was a love marriage. She has admitted that the respondent used to get transferred and till recently when she left him, they stayed together in Government accommodation and they had no dispute between them. She has also admitted that the entire expenses of education of their children was borne by the respondent. Even after they left the company of the respondent, he is paying their school/college fees, medical expenses and whenever she requests for money he has sent it.

¶41

8.1 The petitioner has also admitted that the respondent has also taken care of his family members, performed the marriage of his two sisters and also taking

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:15005 CRL.RP No. 122 of 2024

¶44

care of his mother. She has admitted that a Panchayath was held in the presence of Kodimbal Swamiji and he has admitted her fault and agreed to correct herself. However she has denied that the said Panchayath was held with regard to her relationship with the brother of the respondent. Even though the petitioner has denied that she is having share in the property of her father, it is elicited that her father was working as a headmaster and owning property. As a daughter and class-I heir she will also be having a share. Now the elder daughter of the petitioner and respondent is employed. The other daughter has also attained majority. The petitioner has also admitted that from the inception, the respondent is offering to take her and the children with him, but she has not made any decision on that offer.

¶45

It is pertinent to note that though during the

¶46

course of evidence, the petitioner has not made any allegations that the respondent is having an illicit relationship with other women, he has been cross-

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15005 CRL.RP No. 122 of 2024

¶48

examined at length, making suggestions to that effect. It is also suggested to the respondent that he has pawned gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner, which fact is not spoken by her. The reading of the entire evidence, makes it clear that even though the petitioner along with her daughters has left the matrimonial home, except paying maintenance to meet her day-to-day expenses, the respondent has taken care of her children's education, medical expenses, etc. In fact, the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court have refused to grant any relief under Sections 19 and 22 of the DV Act. It has prohibited the respondent from causing any intimidation.

¶49

So far as maintenance is concerned, the trial Court has granted maintenance at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month each to the petitioner and her two daughters. The Sessions Court though condoned the delay in filing the appeal, it dismissed the appeal on merits. Now that the daughters are major and one of the daughter is earning, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, they

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15005 CRL.RP No. 122 of 2024

¶51

are not entitled for any maintenance and the maintenance payable to petitioner may be enhanced. When the petitioner filed petition in 2016, the eldest daughter Rachana was already a major and younger daughter was 14 years. By now, she has also attained Majority.

¶52

So long as marriage between the petitioner and respondent subsists, respondent is liable to maintain the petitioner. So far as the petitioner is concerned the maintenance granted to her is on the meager side. The petitioner has not produced any documents to prove the income of the respondent. However, the salary slip of the respondent Ex.R29 indicate that he is drawing a salary of ₹54,857/- during the month of November-2016. After deductions under various head, his take home salary is only ₹22,822/-. However, out of the salary, only statutory deductions are admissible, viz, professional tax, GIS, TDS, the minimum of KGID and GPF, if applicable. From the salary slip, it is evident that the respondent is not paying any KGID or GPF. It appears that they are not applicable

¶53

9 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:15005 CRL.RP No. 122 of 2024

¶55

to his service. Only 30% of TDS is required to be deducted. The rest of the deductions are inadmissible for the purpose of calculating take home salary.

¶56

11.1 Taking into consideration all these aspects and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is not having her own income and there is also the possibility of the respondent getting promotions, it would be reasonable to grant maintenance at the rate of ₹20,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of this order and disallow the maintenance granted to the daughters from the date of this order. To this extent, the petition is required to be allowed and accordingly the following;

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The Petition filed by the petitioner under

¶59

Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is allowed in part.

¶60

(ii) From the date of this order, the maintenance payable to the petitioner is enhanced to ₹20,000/- per month during

¶61

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15005 CRL.RP No. 122 of 2024

¶62

her lifetime or till her remarriage,

¶63

whichever is early.

¶64

(iii) The order granting maintenance to the daughters, Rachana and Spandana is set aside from the date of this order. However, the respondent is liable to pay maintenance to them at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month to them till the date of this order.

¶65

(iv) The order of the trial Court is modified to this extent.

¶66

(v) The Registry is directed to return the trial Court records along with copy of this order forthwith.

¶67

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶68

RR

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Smt. Nalinakshi K.R v. Sri. Raju P S/O Late Palani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nalinakshi K.R v. Sri. Raju P S/O Late Palani

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

Sri Ganesh Shetti Vs Sri Rajan Chaudhary

Sri Hari Prakash Vs Sri Venkataraju S

Sri Raghu Ramanayaka Vs Sri Govindaraju D

Sri.N. Manjunath Vs Sri.K. Srinivas Murthy

Smt Rukmini Manjunath Vs B S Mohan

Swajith Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka by