DUNDAPPA FAKIRAPPA TALWAR Vs. LAXIMIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful husband has filed the above two revision petitions under Section 397 and 401 Cr. P. C. and also under Section 482 Cr. P. C. respectively, challenging the order dated 8. 3. 2001 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 132/98 and Crl. p. 111/98 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum, to modify the order dated 8. 1. 1998 passed by the JMFC, Hukkeri in Crl. Mis. No. 173/1995 and to allow the Crl. R. P. No. 111/1998.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to these petitions are that respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner Dundappa and out of their wedlock a male child, namely Mahantesh Dundappa, was born and the respondent-1, wife, and respondent-2, son, have filed Crl. Misc. No. 26/1981 before the JMFC, Hukkeri, under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for grant of the maintenance amount on the ground of desertion. Therefore after considering the evidence the Magistrate allowed the said application by this order dated 12. 7. 1988 and subsequently respondent-1 and 2 filed and Crl. Misc. No. 173/98 under Section 127 Cr. P. C. with a prayer to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/- to the wife and Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/- to the son. That petition was contested by the revision petitioner. After considering the evidence of both parties the trial court allowed the petition by an order dated 8. 1. 1998 and enhanced the compensation from 8. 1. 1998 and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 35/- to the wife and from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- to the son. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioner herein challenged the same by filing Crl. R. P. 111/1998 before the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum, whereas respondents-1 and 2 being the wife and son of the revision petitioner have challenged the order by filing Crl. R. P. 132/1998. After hearing both parties in both cases the learned Sessions Judge passed a common order dismissing the revision petition filed by this revision petitioner i. e. Crl. R. P. 111/98 and allowed the Crl. R. P. 132/98 filed by the wife and son for enhancement of compensation from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 500/- to the wife and Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/- to the son. Further, the learned Sessions Judge directed this revision petitioner to pay the enhanced amount to wife from the date of filling of the petition and as far as his son is concerned the enhance amount was directed to the paid to him upon 10. 9. 1998. Therefore, the petitioner herein challenged the common order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by way of this revision under Section 397 and 401 as also under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent. /