S.G. Mallikarjuna vs Asha

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner approached this court seeking relaxation of the order passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bellary in CRL. RP. No. 38/2013 dated 18.3.2014, in directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the maintenance amount as ordered by the II Addl. JMFC, Bellary in Crl. Mis. No. 128/2011.

It is seen from the records that respondents herein have filed a Original Suit in OS No. 336/2001 claiming maintenance and the said suit was decreed awarding maintenance to the respondents in a sum of Rs. 4,000/- so far as respondent No. 1 is concerned and a sum of Rs. 2,250/- in so far as second respondent is concerned. The said judgment and decree passed in OS No. 336/2001 was challenged before the Prl District Judge, Bellary in RA No. 22/2003, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.6.2005. Subsequently, in the year 2011, the respondents herein have filed Crl. Mis. 128/2011 u/s. 125 of Cr. PC claiming maintenance at the enhanced rate. The learned Magistrate after trial, awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the 1st and 2nd respondent. This particular order granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- each was challenged before the Sessions Court in Cr. RP. No. 38/2013, wherein the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 18.3.2014 directed the stay of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.Mis. No. 128/2011 dated 28.11.2002 subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the maintenance amount from the date of the petition till the disposal of the Revision Petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before the court that the petitioner has deposited the entire arrears of maintenance. He contends that the second respondent has already attained majority. Therefore, she is not liable to pay maintenance any more.

In fact, the Revision Petition is still pending before the Sessions Court and the petitioner can approach the Sessions Court by making an appropriate application for relaxation of the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has no locus-standi for making an application for relaxation or otherwise before this Court u/s. 482 of Cr. PC. Even the other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that second respondent has attained the age of majority and she is no more entitled for any maintenance u/s. 125 of Cr. PC. For that purpose also, the petitioner has to move the jurisdictional Magistrate for modification of the order u/s. 127 of the Cr. PC before the learned Magistrate.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition, IA. 1/2014 for stay is also dismissed.