SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.ERANNA @ KORI ERANNA S/O LATE MANJAPPA – Appellant
Versus
SMT.ROOPA W/O K. ERANNA @ KORI IRANNA – Respondent
CRL.P/100422/2019



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100422/2019

BETWEEN :

K.ERANNA @ KORI ERANNA S/O LATE MANJAPPA,

AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

R/O: OLD BUS STAND,

HONNALLI-577217, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.

SMT.ROOPA W/O K. ERANNA @ KORI IRANNA,

AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O: OLD BUS STAND,HONNALLI-577217,

DIST: DAVANAGERE, NOW AT MEDLERI,

TQ: RANEBENNUR-581115, DIST: HAVERI.

2.

SWARNA @ PREETI D/O K. ERANNA @ KORI IRANNA,

AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O: OLD BUS STAND, HONNALLI-577217,

DIST: DAVANAGERE, NOW AT MEDLERI,

TQ: RANEBENNUR-581115, DIST: HAVERI.

(SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY

HER M/G MOTHER RESPT-1).

……..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.

SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2019 IN

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.120/2018 PASSED BY THE

LEARNED PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI AND

ORDER DATED 26.03.2018 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS

NO.105/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR AND DISMISS THE

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.105/2012 IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner/husband

is

before

this

Court

challenging the impugned order dated 26.03.2018

passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.105/2012 on

the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Ranebennur (for short, ‘the trial Court’),

whereunder maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each is

ordered to be paid to his wife and daughter, which

was

confirmed

in

Criminal

Revision

Petition

No.120/2018 by the learned Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Haveri (for short ‘the revisional

Court’) vide order dated 07.01.2019.

3

2.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent

No.1 being the wife and respondent No.2 being the

daughter

have

filed

the

petition

in

Criminal

Miscellaneous

No.105/2012

seeking maintenance

from

the

husband.

It

is

contended

that

the

petitioner and the respondent No.1 have married on

02.06.2005 and lived together only for about one

year in the matrimonial house. The daughter by

name Kumari Swarna was born during 2006. It is

stated that at the time of marriage the respondent

was given cash, gold, silver and household articles

as per his demand. The husband started ill-treating

the wife and demanded additional dowry. There was

a panchayat convened by the elders in the family.

But however the difference between the spouse

could not be patched up. The wife along with her

minor daughter started residing in her parents

house. It is stated that the husband is doing

4

business in fertilizers. He owns agricultural lands,

jointly with his siblings. The wife is said to be a

house maker and therefore, the wife and daughter

filed petition seeking maintenance. The trial Court

after

full

fledged

trial,

allowed

Criminal

Miscellaneous No.105/2012, awarding maintenance

of Rs.5,000/- each to the wife and daughter from

the date of petition till the wife remarries or dies

and until the daughter attains the age of majority

or she gets married.

3.

Being

aggrieved

by

the

said

order

awarding maintenance, the husband approached the

revisional Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition

No.120/2018.

The

said

petition

came

to

be

dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2019. Challenging

the award of maintenance by the trial Court and

dismissal of the criminal revision petition by the

revisional Court, the husband is before this Court.

5

4.

Heard

Sri

N.P.Vivekmehta,

for

Sri

Madanmohan M.Khannur, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

5.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

submitted that the husband has suffered loss in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top