Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/1937/2019 of T R JAVARAYEE Vs SMT VASANTHA KUKMARI on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010072722019 NC: 2026:KHC:52738 CRL.P No. 1937 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1937 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. T.R. JAVARAYEE, S/O. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1937 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1.
T.R. JAVARAYEE,
S/O. LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT LINE MAN,
OFFICE OF THE BSNL,
VIJAYANAGAR BRANCH,
MYSURU-570001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. VASANTHA KUMARI,
W/O. T.R. JAVARAYEE,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2.
KUM. J. POOJA,
D/O.T.R. JAVARAYEE,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
3.
MASTER. J. AVINASH,
S/O.T R JAVARAYEE,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
4.
MASTER. J. PUNITHA,
S/O.T R JAVARAYEE,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
ALL ARE
R/AT BEERASHETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
PANDAVAPURA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571434.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. SANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R3, R4 ARE SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
07.07.2004,
21.10.2014
IN
L.A.NO.2/2003,
CRL.MISC.NO.230/2014 ON THE FILE OF TALUK LEGAL
SERVICE AUTHORITY AT PANDAVAPURA AND CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., PANDAVAPURA AS ANNEXURE- A AND B AND TO SET
ASIDE
THE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
DATED 08.02.2019 IN CRL.RP.NO.5059/2016 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA AT ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE CRL.RP.NO.5059/2016 FILED ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA DATED 29.11.2016 AT ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in L.A.No.2/2003 dated 07.07.2004, wherein the Trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the
HC-KAR
wife till her life and Rs.500/- per month each to the children i.e., to the daughter till her marriage and in respect of the sons, till attaining their majority. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.230/2014 dated 21.10.2014 enhancing the maintenance to Rs.2,000/- per month to each of them. The same is confirmed by the Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.5059/2019 dated 08.02.2019. The same is challenged before this Court.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that maintenance was enhanced at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to each in Crl.Misc.No.230/2014 in 2014 i.e., almost after ten years. The earlier order was passed in 2004 and enhancement was made in 2014 enhancing the same to Rs.2,000/- after 10 years and the same cannot be found fault with. However, the Court made it clear that whatever the amount granted by the Trial Court in respect of the wife is concerned, the same is till the end of her life and in respect of daughter is concerned, till her marriage and in respect of the sons, till their attaining majority. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the daughter is married and
HC-KAR
working and hence, the question of payment of maintenance after the marriage does not arise. The learned counsel would contend that in respect of the sons are concerned, the same is also till attaining their majority.
4. When the order of the Trial Court is clear in granting maintenance to the wife till her lifetime, to the daughter until her marriage, and to the sons until they attain majority, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court in 2004 and subsequently in 2014 cannot be said to be exorbitant. Under the circumstances, no ground is made ought to entertain this petition invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9