MANJUNATHA A. Vs. M. SHRUTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being the husband of respondent No.1 has challenged the order dtd. 2/7/2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-V), Bangalore (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short), in Crl.Misc.No.150/2018, granting interim maintenance of Rs.4,000.00 per month each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dtd. 6/1/2022 passed by the LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.1640/2019, by which the order passed by the Trial Court is confirmed.

(2.) The respondents had initiated proceedings under Sec. 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 2005' for short) alleging domestic violence by the petitioner herein and also sought for a protection order and for compensation and maintenance. In the said proceedings, the respondents filed an application under Sec. 23(2) of the Act of 2005 for a direction to the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.40,000.00 per month. They contended that the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.40,000.00 per month and was also a broker earning a sum of Rs.20,000.00 per month. However, they claimed that he had neglected to maintain the respondents. Per contra, the petitioner claimed that he was not in possession of any property and that the one mentioned by the respondents herein was mired in O.S.No.175/2018 before the Civil Court, Malur and that his income was only a sum of Rs.9,000.00 per month. He also claimed that the respondent No.1 was earning a sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 as rent from the properties situated at Bhuvaneshwarinagara, Kempapura Agrahara, Bangalore and Magadi Road, Old Toll-Gate, Next to Petrol Bunk, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. He therefore contended that the respondents are capable of maintaining themselves. He also disputed the paternity of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and contended that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were conceived through IVF procedure and that he had not given his semen sample for the IVF procedure and therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not his children and were therefore not entitled to claim any maintenance from him.

(3.) The Trial Court after considering the material on record, directed the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.4,000.00 per month each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, it did not pass any order to pay any maintenance to the respondent No.1. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Crl.A.No.1640/2019, which too was dismissed.