B.M. Venkatesh vs Kum.Hamsa, rep. By Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Smt. Chayadevi and Smt. Chayadevi

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Respondent No. 1 is the minor daughter and Respondent No. 2 is the wife of the Petitioner. On account of certain differences between them in the marital relationship, the 2nd Respondent initiated proceedings u/s 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and sought for maintenance for herself and also for her minor daughter and for other relief''s at the hands of the jurisdictional Magistrate. The application was opposed by the Petitioner. By considered order dated 14.12.2010, the learned Magistrate directed the Petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the 1st Respondent herein from the date of the order. The said order was questioned by the Petitioner herein in appeal before''; he Sessions Court, Bangalore in Crl. A. No. 23/11. In the said appeal, he sought for stay of the order passed by the trial Magistrate. The appellate Court by order dated 17.01.2011. stayed the order of the learned Magistrate subject to condition that the Appellant should pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- to the Respondent herein till the disposal of the appeal. It is this discretionary order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal is sought to be quashed in this petition filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the copies of the orders produced. The relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents herein is not in dispute. The fact that Respondents - 1 & 2 are living away from the Petitioner is also not in dispute. The Petitioner also does not dispute the fact that the 1st Respondent is now in the care and custody of the 2nd Respondent mother. However, it appears, the Petitioner is paying a meager monthly maintenance of Rs. 750/- to the minor child as per the orders passed by Family Court in the matrimonial proceedings pending therein. The Petitioner being the father is legally and morally bound to maintain the minor daughter. May be that the 2nd Respondent-mother of the minor child is also earning handsomely. However, that by itself cannot be a ground to absolve the liability of the Petitioner from maintaining the minor child. The learned Magistrate having regard to the materials placed before him has found that award of Rs. 4,000/- as maintenance would be just and proper and it would meet the ends of justice The Appellate Judge, pending disposal of the appeal, in exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction has stayed the order of the learned Magistrate subject to certain conditions. The welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration for the Court. The learned Appellate Judge, in my opinion, has exercised his discretionary jurisdiction properly for the welfare of the minor child. The conditional order directing the Petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at Rs. 2,500/-, pending disposal of the appeal cannot be termed either as irrational or as excessive. In this view of the matter. I find no grounds to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the petition, the application-Misc. Crl. 876/2011 filed for stay in this petition does not survive for consideration, hence, it stands disposed of.