ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಜಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸುವ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು, ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸುವ ಅದಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಹೊ೦ದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ

ಭಾರತೀಯ ದ೦ಡ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ ೧೨೫ ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶಕ್ಕೆ ಹೊರಡಿಸಿದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ ೧೨೮ ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಜಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನೇ ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸಿದೆ. ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಜಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸುವ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು, ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸುವ ಅದಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಹೊ೦ದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎ೦ದು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಹೇಳಿದೆ.

Huligewwa and another vs Hanumanthappa. Criminal Petition 102043/2017 decided on 5 November 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347694/1/CRLP102043-17-05-11-2020.pdf

HELD: The role of the trial Court under Section 128 Cr.P.C. is very limited and confined only for enforcement of the order of maintenance. Modification can be done only by filing an application under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C.

Relevant Paragraphs: 9. “128. Enforcement of order of maintenance. A copy of the order of maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be shall be given without payment to the person in whose favour it is made, or to his guardian, if any, or to the person to whom the allowance for the maintenance or the allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be is to be paid; and such order may be enforced by any Magistrate in any place where the person against whom it is made may be, on such Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non-payment of the allowance or as the case may be expenses, due.” A reading of the above Section clearly go to show that, the role of the trial Court under Section 128 Cr.P.C. is very limited and confined only for enforcement of the order of maintenance. If at all it is brought to the notice of the trial Court that the order of granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. requires any revisit, in such an event, a necessary application or petition may required to be filed under the relevant provision of law, may be even under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. also.

10. The petitioners in Criminal Misc.No.67/2011 had only sought for arrears of maintenance by filing a petition under Section 128 Cr.P.C. In such a proceeding, the trial Court ought not  to have proceeded to exercise its power under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C, in the absence of any specific application or request made invoking the said provision of law and in the absence of any opportunity being given to the petitioner, who would be aggrieved by passing any order under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. Whereas, in the instant case, without there being any specific request made under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the order of maintenance and also without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and hearing them as to why the order of maintenance, which was in force in their favour, be cancelled, straight away the trial Court has proceeded to cancel the maintenance showing that it has invoked its power under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C.

11.Thus, the procedure adopted by the trial Court being detrimental to the interest of the parties and unknown to law and set aside

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.