Abrar Ahmed Khan Ameri vs Sumaiya Bhanu & Ors

H.P. Sandesh, J

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and the learned counsel for the respondents-wife and child.

This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, in C.Mis.No.489/2017 dated 11.12.2018, wherein directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to his wife and Rs.2,000/- to the child. At the time of filing the petition, the second petitioner was aged about five years. In the earlier petition i.e., C.Mis.No.282/2014, an interim order was passed with a direction to the husband to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the first petitioner-wife and a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the second petitioner-child. Then, the matter was referred to Lok-Adalath. At the intervention of the Conciliators, both agreed to live together. Accordingly, he took the wife and the child, made a separate house but he did not pay the rent. She was also forced to withdraw the petition in C.Mis.No.146/2015.

It is the contention of the petitioner that even after he took her back he did not provide the shelter and food and also not paid the rent to the owner. The advance amount adjusted towards the rent and insisted the petitioners to vacate the house and handover the possession of the house to the owner.

The respondent in his objection statement denied the averments made in the petition and he also denied that he is getting income of Rs.40,000/- per month and also denied that he is not the proprietor of M/s.N.A.K. Wood Turning Works and earning Rs.40,000/- per month.

The parties have led the evidence before the Trial Court. In order to prove their case, the first petitioner herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P12. The respondent himself examined as R.W.1 and not marked any document.

The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record and also considering the certified copy of complaint, certified copy of FIR, certified copy of charge-sheet, certified copy of order sheet of C.Mis.No.282/2014, certified copy of Joint Memo, School receipt for having admitted the child to the school, and considering the photos and visiting card, awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the first petitioner - wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner – child.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court has committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the first petitioner - wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner – child. In total Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner is not having any income to pay the said amount. The Trial Court ought to have considered the status of the petitioner and he is unable to maintain the wife and child. The order passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary and in a hurried manner an order has been passed. Hence, it requires interference.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in the year 2014 also, a petition was filed and the matter was compromised on the advice of the conciliators. Earlier there was an interim order with a direction to the husband to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and a sum of Rs.1,500/-per month to the child, the same was not paid. Even though he made a separate house for them, he did not pay the rent and neglected his wife and the child. Hence, the Trial Court taking into note of the material available on record and the cost of living, allowed the petition with cost and also directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to his wife and Rs.2,000/- to the child per month. In the said amount, it is highly difficult to maintain herself and the child and to provide education to the child.

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, and taking into note of the reasoning given by the Trial Court, the Trial Court also taken note of the earlier proceedings in C.Mis.No.282/2014 and an interim order of maintenance and also the settlement arrived between the parties and also taken note of the fact that the husband has not provided shelter, food and the education to the child, considering the bounden duty of the husband, the Trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the first petitioner - wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner – child, who is aged about 5 years. Out of this amount only, the wife has to bear the educational expenses of the child also. When such being the case, I do not find any merit to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.