W/O PANCHAKSHARI. AGED 27 YEARS,. CHOMANAHALLI,. HIRENALLUR
HOBLI,. KADUR TALUK-577 548. 2.KUM.YASHASWINI. D/O PANCHAKSHARI.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA CRL.RP.NO.684/2012 BETWEEN SRI PANCHAKSHARI S/O H.N.BASAVARAJU AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANNDIKE VILLAGE, GOOLUR HOBLI, TUMKUR 572 101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H T JAGANNATHA & SRI M.V.SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVS.) AND 1.SMT VEDAVATHI @ ASHA W/O PANCHAKSHARI AGED 27 YEARS, CHOMANAHALLI, HIRENALLUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK-577 548 2.KUM.YASHASWINI D/O PANCHAKSHARI AGED 1 1/2 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN & NEXT FRIEND RESPONDENT NO.1. ... RESPONDENTS ******
2
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DT.21.04.12 PASSED BY THE P.O. FTC, CHIKMAGALUR IN CRL.A.NO.47/12 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DT.29.2.12 PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. AND JMFC., KADUR IN CRL.MISC.NO.419/11. THIS CRL. R.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH IA NO.1/2012 FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
Learned
counsel
for
the
Revision
Petitioner
submits that the First Appellate Court erred in allowing the Criminal Appeal No.47/2012 by setting aside the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kadur and awarding compensation, maintenance and etc.,
2.
Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner
submits that the Revision Petitioner is ready and willing to take back the respondents viz., the wife and daughter. He further submits Revision Petitioner is an agriculturist by profession and he has no means to pay the amount as awarded by the impugned judgment.
3
3.
The respondents – wife and daughter of the
Revision Petitioner have filed a petition in Crl. Misc. No.419/2011 under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, through the Protection Officer, Kadur seeking maintenance and other reliefs.
The marriage of the Revision Petitioner
was performed with the respondent No.1 on 18.2.2010 at Tumkur and respondent No.2 was born out of the lawful wedlock of the Revision Petitioner and the respondent No.1. It is the case of the respondents that Revision Petitioner is owning a cloth shop at Honnudiki village
and getting an income
of Rs.15,000/- to
Rs.20,000/- per month and also getting agricultural income of Rs.2 lakhs per annum. It is the case of the respondents that the Revision Petitioner has deserted and therefore, the first appellate court is justified in awarding Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony under section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act; and a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards their maintenance and medical expenses and etc.,
The First Appellate
Court has rightly confirmed the order of the Trial Court.
4
I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, the Revision Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.
In view of the rejection of the Revision Petition, IA 1/2012 for suspension of sentence does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE PL
