Basavaraja Gouda vs K. Bhagya and Others

B. Veerappa, J—For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking in the Family Court.

The respondent/husband has filed above revision petition against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. 44/2013 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bellary granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the wife/petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- per month each to the son and daughter/petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 respectively from the date of petition till the date of their attaining majority.

It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that they are the wife and children of respondent/husband and the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent was performed on 24.2.2002 at Challakere. After leading the married life for a period of 5 to 6 years, the respondent/husband started picking up quarrels with petitioner No. 1/wife without any valid reasons and he totally neglected to look after the livelihood of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent is running a medical shop and is also a proprietor of Aparna Medical Shop earning an handsome income. He is also having immoveable properties in Sy. No. 346 B/4 measuring 2.62 acres, house properties bearing Nos. 541, 302 and 1571 situated at Kudithini village and is working as a contractor with Jindal Steel Limited Company getting an income of Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- per month. He is also having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. He had no love and affection towards them. The respondent left the house of the petitioners without intimation and then filed a divorce petition in M.C. No. 113/2010 at Bellary. In the said proceedings, petitioners were awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as legal expenses. Hence, the petitioners filed a petition seeking maintenance before the Family Court.

The respondent/husband filed objections before the Family Court admitting his relationship with the petitioners and denied all the allegations including the income contending that the 1st petitioner herself started giving mental torture to him by picking up quarrels for silly things. The respondent had four brothers, who had their share in the partition deed. Hence petitioner No. 1 was demanding the respondent to give money and get gold as well as for transferring of the landed property in her name. When the respondent refused to transfer the properties in her name, she started abusing him in vulgar language and also started suspecting his character, etc., prayed for dismissal of the petition.

In order to establish the claim on behalf of the petitioners, wife examined herself as P.W. 1 and a witness - P.W. 2 and got marked the document Ex. P. 1. The respondent examined himself as R.W. 1 and no document was produced.

On considering the entire material on record, the Family Court by the impugned order dated 27.8.2013 granted a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the wife/petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- per month each to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3/son and daughter respectively from the date of petition till the date of their attaining majority respectively. Hence, the present revision petition is filed by the husband/respondent.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned Counsel appearing for the husband/respondent therein contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,500/- to each of the children is exorbitant and without any basis. He also contended that the respondent/husband himself left his house leaving to the petitioner No. 1/wife. He also contended that the petitioner No. 1/wife has not produced any material document to show that the respondent/husband though is working as a contractor and having agricultural lands is running a medical shop. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance is liable to be set aside by allowing this revision petition.

Per contra, Sri Niranjan, S.S. learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband sought to justify the impugned order.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

It is not in dispute that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 24.2.2002 at Challakere and out of the wedlock, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were born.

Petitioner No. 1/wife examined as P.W. 1 has categorically stated that the respondent being running a Aparna Medical Shop is also working as a contractor in Jindal Steel Ltd., Company at Thoranagallu and earning an income of more than Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month. She also produced a copy of the record of rights marked as Ex. P. 1 in respect of the agricultural land measuring 2.62 acres at Thimlapura village to show that he is having an agricultural sources of Rs. 30,000/- to 35,000/- per year and also is having three houses. Though the respondent/husband has denied the said assertions of P.W. 1, has not produced any material documents to disprove the same but in his cross-examination has admitted that he is having agricultural lands as per Ex. P. 1 and also that he is working as a contractor in Jindal Steel Ltd. Company. Though P.W. 1 has categorically stated that the respondent/husband is having three houses, he has not ventured to disprove the said fact by producing any material document to show that the houses do not belong to him in spite of P.W. 1 specifically giving the house numbers as 541, 302, 1571 situated at Kudithini village. Therefore, taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent/husband is earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to 45,000/- from the agricultural lands measuring to an extent of 2.62 acres and has inferred that if he being an able man earning Rs. 200/- to 250/- per day in a city like Bellary, his notional income would be Rs. 200/- to 250/- per day which comes to Rs. 6,000/- to 7,500/- per month and also working as a contractor in Jindal Steel Company, his income would be more around Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- per month.

Taking into consideration the income of the respondent/husband from agricultural lands, houses existing in his name and as a contractor, the Family Court coming to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1/wife is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3/son and daughter to a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each per month is based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

In a latest decision, the Apex Court while considering the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena, AIR 2014 SC 2875 : (2014) AIRSCW 4201 : (2014) 8 JT 359 : (2014) 8 SCALE 573 at para-2 has held as under:

"2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an un-person to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."

Considering the entire material on record and the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court stated supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is just and proper and does not need any interference in exercise of the powers under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act and accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.