M.N. PUTTARAJU @ RAJU, S/O LATE NANJAPPA AND VEDA MURTHI, S/O LATE NANJAPPA Vs. SULOCHANA, W/O LATE ATHMALINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions arise out of one and the same judgment of the lower appellate court in Crl. A. Nos. 626 and 627/2009. The order of the trial court dismissing the petition filed by the respondents herein was reversed by the lower appellate court and hence these petitions by the aggrieved respondents in the trial court. The respondents in Crl. R.P. No. 1212/2010 filed a miscellaneous petition before the trial court in Crl. Misc. No. 545/2008 and it was under Section 12of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short) and likewise, the respondents in Crl. R.P. No. 1211/2010 also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act, which was registered as Crl. Misc. No. 546/2008. In the petitions so filed by the respondents before this court, the relief of maintenance was sought along with other reliefs and the trial court clubbed both the miscellaneous applications and passed a common order dismissing the petitions filed under Section 12 of the Act. The appeals preferred by the respondents in Crl. A. Nos. 626 and 627/2009 came to be dismissed by the lower appellate court by its common judgment and the revision petitioners before this court were directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/ - per month to the respective respondents herein.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the other material on record.

(3.) IT is, therefore, contended that the lower appellate court has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment only on the reasoning that the respondents also have a right in the property and, therefore, until a final partition takes place in the suit, the respondents have to be given the maintenance. This reasoning, it is submitted by learned, counsel for the petitioners, is totally erroneous and in the guise of filing an application under Section 12 of the Act, the respondents cannot be given any share in the property and if the reasoning given by the lower appellate court has to be accepted, then, there would be no occasion for filing a partition suit.