Praveen Cariappa vs Mrs. Birdy Aiyappa

K. Ramanna, J.—The petitioner has come up with this revision petition challenging the order dated 3-7-2007 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayohall at Bangalore in Crl. Misc. No. 341/2007 and the order dated 28-2-2009 passed by the FTC-JV at Bangalore in Crl.A. No. 895/2007.

The brief facts of the case are that, petitioner herein is the husband of complainant-respondent herein; their marriage took place on 18th January 2004. Complaint came to be filed by the respondent against petitioner and her parents u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and sought for orders u/s 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the Act (''Act'' for short). The trial Court after considering the averments made by complainant in her affidavit filed in support of the complaint, passed exparte interim order against the respondent as under:

The respondents are restrained from preventing the applicant in any manner from entering and using the shared household being the apartment No. D-202, KAMAL, 2nd Floor, Block-1, "Rohan Vasantba" Munnekollala village, Varthur hobli, Bangalore.

The respondents restrained from alienating or disposing or encumbering or leasing the above-shared house of any 3rd parties.

The 1st respondent is restrained from renouncing his rights in the shared household.

The 1st respondent is directed to return all the jewels and household articles and personal belongings of the applicant.

The 1st respondent is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ - per month to applicant to meet her expenses.

The police inspector of H.A.L police station is directed to give necessary protection to applicant.

Being aggrieved by the above said order which was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.A. No. 895/2007 u/s 29 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, passed order dated 28-2-2009 declining to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence this revision.

Heard the arguments of the parties and perused the records.

According to petitioner, the exparte interim order passed by the trial Court is wholly incorrect and illegal and there is no provision under the Act to pass any such interim orders without bearing the respondent-petitioner herein. Further, according to petitioner, after the marriage the petitioner and respondent lived together at No. 301, Sapthagiri Apartments, No. 9, BDA layout, Opp: Kemp, fort, Bangalore-17 and they never lived together at premises No. D-202, Kamal, II floor, Block-I, Rohan Vasantha, Munekolalu village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, as such, the order passed by the Courts below restraining the petitioner from preventing the respondent entering and using the premises at Rohan Vasantha Apartment, considering the same as shared household is incorrect and illegal. It is further contended that the respondent is a practicing advocate getting a monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/- and she being a working woman, she is not entitled to get maintenance from the petitioner, that she is not dependant on the petitioner. Hence, prayed to allow the petition setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below.

It is not in dispute that, petitioner is the husband of respondent. Complaint came to be filed by respondent against the petitioner and her parent-in-laws u/s 12 of the Act. It is not in dispute that after the marriage, petitioner and respondent herein lived together in 301, Sapthagiri Apartments, No. 9. BDA layout, Opp: Kemp fort, Bangalore-17. Of course, respondent is residing separately from petitioner from 26-4-2007. It is further not in dispute that respondent herein has also filed a complaint against the petitioner and his parents before the Jeevanbheemanagar Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 498A IPC and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, wherein the place of occurrence is shown as premises No. 301, Sapthagiri Apartments, No. 9, BDA layout, Opp; Kemp, fort, Bangalore-17. However, the trial Court passed the orders restraining the petitioner herein from preventing the respondent from entering and using apartment No. D-202, Kamal, II floor, Block-I, Rohan Vasantha, Munekolalu village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, considering the same as a shared household. It is not in dispute that both the premises mentioned above belongs to the petitioner herein. The petitioner has not seriously disputed this fact Therefore, considering the fact that the above said premises belongs to respondent, the trial Court passed orders as above, considering the same as shared household. Of course, it is admitted by respondent in her cross examination before trial Court, that she never lived with the petitioner in the said premises at Rohan Vasantha. The trial court considering the averments made by the respondent in the complaint, in order to protect the interest of the respondent who was said to be placed on street by the petitioner, passed the aforesaid order.

Further, according to petitioner, the respondent being a working woman, is not entitled to get any interim maintenance from the petitioner. It is argued by Counsel for the petitioner that respondent being a practicing advocate getting salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month and she is not a dependant on petitioner, thus, she is not entitled to any maintenance from petitioner. However, considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case and the fact that petitioner was earning not less than Rs. 16 lakhs per annum, the trial Court passed order directing petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. It is argued by Counsel for respondent that petitioner has not complied the order passed by trial Court in this regard and has not deposited the said maintenance amount as and when it becomes due and he has showed disrespect to the order passed by the trial Court. At this stage, it is submitted by Counsel for both parties that the matter has already reached final stage before trial court and the same is now posted for arguments. Hence, considering the fact that, trial is already over and the case itself will be disposed of in a short period, I do not find any good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Courts below.

Hence this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.