Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ananth Kumar S C, filed two criminal revision petitions under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-69) in Criminal Appeal Nos.1530/2015 and 801/2015. The background of the case is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife, Basamma @ Bindu (respondent No.1), and their two minor children (respondents No.2 and 3). The wife had filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and the children. The Family Court allowed the petition and granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the two children, totaling Rs.11,000/- per month. The petitioner appealed against this order before the Sessions Court, which dismissed the appeals and confirmed the maintenance amount. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present revision petitions. The petitioner argued that he had no income and that the maintenance amount was excessive, while the respondents contended that the petitioner was a healthy person capable of earning and that the maintenance was just. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the revisional court cannot interfere unless there is a patent illegality or perversity. The court noted that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to show a change in circumstances or his incapacity to pay. The court also observed that the maintenance amount was reasonable considering the needs of the wife and children. Consequently, the court dismissed both revision petitions, finding no merit.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Quantum of Maintenance - The petitioner-husband challenged the maintenance orders passed by the Family Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court, contending that the quantum of maintenance was excessive and that he had no income. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove any change in circumstances or incapacity to pay, and that the maintenance awarded was just and proper. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 CrPC - Scope of Revision - The revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and can interfere only if there is a patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. The High Court found no such error in the impugned orders. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of maintenance granted to the wife and children under Section 125 CrPC requires interference in revision, and whether the petitioner has made out grounds for reduction or setting aside of the maintenance amount.
Final Decision
Both criminal revision petitions are dismissed. The order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1530/2015 and Crl.A.No.801/2015 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Revision jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC
- Change in circumstances
- Quantum of maintenance
- Burden of proof
