K. Chandra Kumar vs Smt. M.A. Sridevi

H. Billappa, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 3.7.2015 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur, in CMC No. 222/2013 on I.A. filed under section 127 of Cr.P.C.

By the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents under section 127 of Cr.P.C. and has modified the order dated 6.6.2014 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents 1 and 2 from the date of application until further orders.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this criminal petition.

Briefly stated the facts are:

The 1st respondent is the wife and second respondent is the son of the petitioner. They have filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance in CMC No. 222/2013 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur. In the said petition the respondents have filed I.A. for interim maintenance, which was allowed by order dated 6.6.2014 granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each. It was challenged by the respondents in Cri. R.P. No. 61/2014 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, Kolar. The learned Sessions Judge has directed the respondents to approach the Magistrate for modification of the order dated 6.6.2014. Thereafter, the respondents have filed an application under section 127 of Cr.P.C. for modification of the order dated 6.6.2014. The Trial Court by its order dated 3.7.2015 has allowed the application and modified the order dated 6.6.2014 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents from the date of application until further orders.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this criminal petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court without any basis has awarded monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/-per month to the respondents 1 and 2 Further, the petitioner is working as Spares Executive and his monthly salary is Rs. 10.400/-. After deduction of Rs. 1,783/-, the petitioner is getting salary of Rs. 8,617/-. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents 1 and 2 is unreasonable and cannot be sustained in law.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. Further, the petitioner is bound to maintain the respondents 1 and 2. The 2nd respondent was suffering from ill health and a huge amount has been spent for medical expenses. Further, the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was working as Spares Executive. The petitioner is getting huge amount and he owns house property in the name of his mother. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

I have care fully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

It is relevant to note, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed petition for maintenance. In the said petition, the respondents have filed I.A. for interim maintenance. The Trial Court by its order dated 6.6.2014 has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each to the respondents 1 and 2. It has been challenged in Cri.R.P. No. 61/2014. The matter has been disposed of with a direction to approach the Trial Court for modification. Thereafter, the respondents have filed application under section 127 of Cr.RC. for modification of the order dated 6.6.2014. The Trial Court by its order dated 3.7.2015 has allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents 1 and 2 towards maintenance from the date of application until further orders.

Before the Trial Court, the petitioner has not produced any document regarding his exact income. The Trial Court taking into consideration that the petitioner has not disclosed his personal expenses or liability or responsibilities has ordered monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month.

Before this court, the petitioner has produced his salary certificate. It shows that the monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs. 10,400/- per month. Though the respondents contend that the petitioner is getting huge amount, there is no acceptable material. The petitioner contends that he has to maintain his mother also. The salary certificate shows that the petitioner is getting salary of Rs. 10,400/- per month. Taking this into consideration, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2 from the date of application till the disposal of the main petition in CMC No. 222/2013.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.7.2015 passed in CMC No. 222/2013 is modified directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2 from the date of application till the disposal of the main petition in CMC No. 222/2013 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur.

I.A. for vacating interim stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is rejected.