Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.
Smt. Sujatha, W/o. Prasanna Venkatesh - Petitioner
Versus
Sri. Prasanna Venkatesh, S/o. Venkatappa - Respondent
R.P.F.C. No. 120 of 2016
Decided On : 16-03-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125, 125(4), 156(3) and 173 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 494 and 498-A - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Offence of marrying against during lifetime of husband or wife – Seeking allowance maintenance - Alleging offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC against the respondent and also the present petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in the Family Court - Petitioner in the Family Court was that, she is the legally wedded wife of the present respondent, whose marriage was performed at a place the rites and customs prevailing in their community - Respondent, at the time of marriage, was working as Police Constable Police Station at and was getting a salary of - Apart from this, he was also getting rental income from the house properties - Allegation that, the respondent was not maintaining her properly and was not providing food, clothing, shelter and medicines and therefore, she could not live with him - Respondent also tortured her and ill-treated her - she tolerated the same with a hope that he would mend his ways and behave well one day or the other - But all her hopes went in vain. She also stated that he was also not regular in coming to the home and from July 2006 onwards, he totally stopped from coming to home and stopped showing any love or affection or care towards her (petitioner). With this, she stated that, she requires at least a sum for her basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter and medicines – Held, Family Court, without considering these aspects, merely by looking at the alleged letter at Exhibit R-2 and alleged agreement of marriage at Exhibit R-3 and relying upon the evidence of RW-2, jumped to a conclusion that, the petitioner has been living in adultery by undergoing a second marriage with - Trial Court to pass an erroneous order, denying the petitioner, the maintenance claimed by her. Since the said order is now proved to be erroneous and perverse, the same deserves to be set aside. Since the petitioner has proved that it is because of the cruelty meted to her by her husband and he undergoing a second marriage with one Parvathamma, she had to leave the company of her husband and live separately, she is entitled for maintenance from her husband - respondent, though denied that, he is getting income from house properties, but has not denied that he is working in the Police Department. The respondent as RW-1, in his cross-examination in the year 2014, has stated that, as on the said year, his salary month - According to the learned counsels from both side, presently, the respondent, after promotion, is working as the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police - Respondent as RW-1 in his cross-examination has also stated that, according to him, as in the year 2014, the petitioner was incurring an expenditure of a sum said circumstances – Court’s view that, as on the date of filing of the petition in the Family Court, the petitioner was entitled for maintenance at rate month from the respondent - Family Court has erred in analysing the evidence led before it, the same has resulted into an erroneous finding given by it on the points raised by it for consideration, as such, interference at the hands of this Court, in the said order - Petition of the petitioner is allowed
ORDER :
The petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) filed by the present petitioner against the present respondent in Crl.Misc.No.37/2007, in the Court of the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Family Court”), seeking monthly maintenance at Rs.5,000/-per month, came to be dismissed by the order of the Family Court dated 28-04-2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
2. The summary of the case of the petitioner in the Family Court was that, she is the legally wedded wife of the present respondent, whose marriage was performed on 31-08-1994 at a place called Kanakapura, as per the rites and customs prevailing in their community. The respondent, at the time of marriage, was working as Police Constable in Yeshawanthapura Police Station at Bengaluru and was getting a salary of Rs.9,525/-per month. Apart from this, he was also getting rental income from the house properties. It is her allegation that, the respondent was not maintaining her properly and was not providing food, clothing, shelter and medicines and therefore, she could not live with him from August 2006. The respondent also tortured her and ill-treated her, however, she tolerated the same with a hope that he would mend his ways and behave well one day or the other. But all her hopes went in vain. She also stated that he was also not regular in coming to the home and from July 2006 onwards, he totally stopped from coming to home and from August 2006, he stopped showing any love or affection or care towards her (petitioner). With this, she stated that, she requires at least a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month for her basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter and medicines.
3. The respondent appeared through his counsel in the Family Court and filed his statement of objections, wherein he admitted his marital relationship with the petitioner and stated that after marriage, they lived together for a period of six months. However, he contended that, thereafter, the petitioner herself left the matrimonial home and went with one Sri. S. Robert, S/o. Selvaraj. In that regard, he had also lodged a complaint about the missing of his wife before the D.J. Halli Police Station, on 24-08-1995. His wife was traced by the said Police, before whom also, she disclosed that she had married the said Sri. S. Robert and entered into an agreement of marriage dated 05-09-1995 with him, as such, she is living with him. The respondent, however, admitted that, he is working as Police Constable at Yeshawanthapura Police Station. He denied that apart from salary, he has any other source of income including from the house properties. He also denied the petition averment that he was subjecting his wife (petitioner) to ill-treatment and was neglecting her in any manner.
4. In order to prove her case, the petitioner got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-16. The respondent got himself examined as RW-1 and got examined two more witnesses as RW-2 and RW-3 and got marked documents from Exhibits R-1 to R-18.
5. The respondent is being represented by his learned counsel.
6. The Family Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
7. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Family Court’s records.
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this petition is :
9. It is not in dispute that, the marriage between the present petitioner and respondent was performed on 31-08-1994 according to the custom prevailing in their community. It is also an admitted fact that, the respondent has been serving in the Karnataka Police De
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
