Smt Shobha N Vs Sri Halesh Naika

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.N. SAMEER, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.17/2015 BY THE III ADDL. S.J., AT SHIVAMOGGA AND ENHANCE THE MAINTENANCE OF RS.15,000/- PER MONTH ON DATE OF PETITION.

¶15

IN CRL.RP NO. 998/2016:

¶16

BETWEEN:

¶17

SRI HALESH NAIKA S/O ESHWARA NAIKA

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:3455 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 998 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING NEAR VENKATESHWAA TEMPLE ROAD MALAVAGOPPA SHIMOGA - 577 201.

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI SAMEER S.N, ADV.)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SMT. SHOBHA N W/O HALESH NAIKA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O MASJID STREET MALAVAGOPPA SHIMOGA - 577 201.

¶26

...RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI A.G. GURURAJA, ADV.)

¶28

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE J.M.F.C.-II, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.MISC.NO.147/2012 DATED 05.01.2015 AND LATER CONFIRMED BY THE III ADDL. S.J., SHIVAMOGGA BY DISMISSING IN CRL.A.NO.4/2015 DATED 03.03.2016.

¶29

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

These two criminal revision petitions are between the

¶33

same parties arising out of the same proceedings, and therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶34

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:3455 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 998 of 2016

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Marriage of the parties to these petitions was solemnized

¶39

on 11.06.2005. It appears that subsequently the relationship between the parties got strained. Petitioner in Crl.RP.No.1590/2016 - Smt. Shobha.N., who is the wife of the respondent - Sri Halesh Naika, had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in Crl.Mis.No.147/2012 before the Court of JMFC-II, Shivamogga, seeking various reliefs under the provisions of the said Act. The Trial Court vide the order impugned dated 05.01.2015 partly allowed Crl.Mis.No.147/2012 and directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the wife from 01.07.2013 and also further directed

¶40

him to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and marriage expenses of Rs.50,000/-. Additionally, he was directed to return the gold jewellery pledged by him in State Bank of Mysore, Harige Branch, and in the event he is not in a position to return the jewellery, he was directed to give 106.10 grams of 22 Carat gold plus 20% of its value as making cost, along with penalty of Rs.25,000/-. Being not satisfied with the order passed in Crl. Mis.No.147/2012, wife had filed Crl.A.No.17/15 and husband had filed Crl.A.No.4/2015. The said appeals were dismissed by

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:3455 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 998 of 2016

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the Appellate Court by two separate orders dated 03.03.2016.

¶45

Aggrieved by the same, wife is before this Court in Crl.RP.No.1590/2016 and the husband is before this Court in Crl.RP.No.998/2016.

¶46

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that husband - Halesh Naika is a cab driver and after the marriage, his wife who was a B.A. Graduate had completed her D.Ed. degree. According to the husband, for her educational expenses he had paid the money. However, no material was produced in this regard before the Trial Court. He has also contended that after the couple started living separately, his wife was conducting tuition to students and was earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/-.

¶47

The Trial Court having appreciated the oral evidence of PW-1 & PW-2, which would go to show that the husband along with his family members owned certain immovable properties, has awarded maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month and also has directed him to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards marriage expenses to the respondent. In addition to the same, he was directed to return the gold

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:3455 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 998 of 2016

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

jewellery of the wife which he had allegedly pledged in the bank.

¶52

The allegations made against the husband about domestic violence has been proved by the wife by examining PW-1 & PW-2 before the Trial Court and also by producing relevant documents which are marked as exhibits before the Trial Court. The material on record would go to show that in addition to the present proceedings, a criminal case was also registered against the husband by the wife for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 506, 323, 34 IPC and in the said proceedings, the husband was charge-sheeted.

¶53

Considering the nature of allegations made against the husband and also having regard to his avocation and income, the Trial Court had rightly allowed the petition in part and granted just and appropriate maintenance and compensation to the wife. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence that was placed on record, has dismissed both the appeals that were filed by the wife and husband in Crl.A.No.17/2015 & Crl.A.No.4/2015 and has confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. In my

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3455 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 998 of 2016

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

considered opinion, the impugned orders passed by the courts below do not call for interference. The order of the Trial Court is just and proper, and if the said order is confirmed, the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following order:

¶57