IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAIKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30a1 DAY OP JUNE 201 1 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10.541/2011 BETWEEN: As ho k S/c. Venkappa Pugashetti, Age: 33 years, 0cc: Coohe, R/o. Honakuppi. Ta I: U okak Dist: Belgaum. ... PETIT1)NER IBY SRI.HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV..) AND: The State of Karnataka, B State Public Prosecutor. 2, Smi. Bhimavva W/o. Ashok Pugashetti, Age: 28 years. 0cc: Agrticulturc, And Household work. R/o. Honakuppai, Now at: Koujalagi, Ta 1: (Jo k a Dist: Belgaum. 3. Kum. Vijava D/o. Ashok Pugashetti, Age: 0$ years. 0cc: Student. R/o. Honakuppi, Now at: Koujalagi, Tal : Gokak, Di st: Be 1 g a urn, Since minor R/by her mother Smt. Bhimavva W/o. Ashok. Pu gash e t t i. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANAND K. NAVALGTMATF{, HCGP POR RI) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment and order passed by I Addi. Sessions dudge, Belgaum dated 27.01.201 1 in Cr.R.P.No, 105/2007 and set aside the judgment and order passed by Acidi. JMFC Court (lokak in cr. Misc. No.154/2004 dated 14/08/2006. This petition coming on for admission clay. the court macic the following: ORDER Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent 01 the learned counsel br both the parties, it is taken up for final hearing. 2. The facts reveal that, the petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and the father of the third respondent After the marriage of the petitioner with the second respondent, the wife came to the house of the husband to lead matrimonial life and she gave birth to female child. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner started harassing the second respondent, insisting to bring the money from her parental home. Though a second child was born, it died after few months of its birth. It is in these circumstances, the second respondent is residing with her parents. As the petitioner did not provide any maintenance, she moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. requesting for grant of maintenance. 3. During the inquiry, after recording the evidence and on appreciation of material on record, the prayer for granting maintenance of Rs.500/- p.m. to each of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr1. R.P.No. 105/2007, and the said revision came to be dismissed on merits. 4 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the court below, the present petition ahs been filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. So far as refusal and neglect is concerned, the material placed on record reveals, that the wife was in her parental home with the child for a long time. The petitioner did not take care by paying some money for the maintenance of wife and the child who were residing in the parental home. So far as refusal and neglect is concerned, it need not be proved by direct evidence. The conduct of the petitioner in neglecting his wife or not looking after her, implidely amounts to refusal and neglect. In the circumstances, so far as the finding of refusal and neglect is concerned, there is ample material on record through the evidenc of P.W. 1 to P.W.3 and therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the said finding. 5 8. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the second respondent has produced records of rights, at Ex.P. 1 to P.5. Ex.P.5 and P.7 are the property extract and khata extract. The records reveal that, the petitioner herein is the land owner and doing agricultural work. It is in the evidence of the witnesses that the petitioner owns more than 30 acres of land and getting sufficient income. But any how, the trial court did not accept that fact and though there is rise in the price of the essential commodities, has granted meager amount of Rs.500/- to the second respondent and Rs.500/- to the third respondent child. 9. ft is well established law, that even if husband is ascetic he has to look after his wife and provide the maintenance. In the circumstances, I am of the• opinion that thc petitioner has not made out any grounds to warrant interference in the orders of the courts below. 6 In the result, as there is no merit in this petition, it is dismissed. Misc.Crl.15721/2011 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence it is rejected. Sd/ * JUDGE Rms/