Chandrakanth vs Drakshayni

B. Veerappa, J.—The husband has filed the above revision petition against the order dated 2.7.2012 made in Crl.Misc.125/11 passed by the Family Court, Dharwad, granting maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to the respondent/wife.

The respondent filed Crl.P.125/2011 claiming maintenance, alleging that she is legally wedded wife of petitioner whose marriage with respondent was solemnized on 18.6.1979 according to Hindu Customs. After the marriage, they lived happily and out of the wedlock two male children by name Basavaraj and Ravindra and female child by name Jyoti were born. Thereafter, the petitioner/husband started behaving in a rude manner and started to harass the wife and children without there being any cause to quarrel on silly matters. It is also alleged that the petitioner/husband is addicted to bad vices and started to ill-treat the respondent/wife from the last four years and he has been residing in Nagalavi village, Dharwad, and he has also developed illicit relationship with a lady. The parents of both sides and elders advised the petitioner, but he has not heeded to their advise. Once, the wife approached ''Pariwar'' and NGO at Sadhankeri, Dharwad, and they have negotiated with the petitioner with an intent to settle the matter amicably. But their efforts including the efforts made by the wife, elders, police officers all went in vain. Thus, the wife has been intentionally neglected without providing her sufficient means to maintain herself by the husband for the last four years from the date of the petition.

It is alleged that the petitioner-husband is working as Professor in Basaveshwar College, Navanagar, Hubli, and he is drawing hand-sum salary and in addition, he is owning agricultural property at Nagalavi village and the respondent - wife does not have any source of income to provide education to the children and perform the marriage of daughter, and therefore, she requires 2,000/- per month.

In response to the notice issued by the Family Court, the petitioner-husband appeared through his Counsel and filed Objections and admitted the marriage with the respondent-wife and also admitted that out of the wedlock they have two sons and one daughter and denied other allegations and contended that the respondent-wife is doing tailoring work and thereby getting sufficient income for her livelihood. It is also alleged that the respondent-wife by colluding with her children kicked him out of the house and thereby harassed the petitioner-husband. Therefore, the petitioner sought for dismissal of the petition.

The respondent-wife in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW.1 and marked the documents Ex. P.1 to P.5. The petitioner -husband examined himself as RW.1 and produced the document as Ex. R.1 and Ex. R.2.

Based on the material documents, the trial court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner through having sufficient income?

Whether the petitioner is unable to maintain herself? Whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance. If so at what rate?"

Considering the entire material on record, the trial recorded a specific finding that the wife has proved that the husband has neglected and refused to maintain his wife and children, though having sufficient income and the wife is unable to maintain herself Therefore, she is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 1,000/-.

As against the said order passed by the Family Court, the present revision petition is filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel Sri. S.S. Yadrami appearing for the petitioner-husband, who contended that the order passed by the Family Court without considering the material documents and surrounding circumstances, granting Rs. 1000/- is erroneous and contrary to the records and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel also contended that as on the date of petition, the petitioner was working as part-time professor and he was not getting sufficient salary and also contended that the petitioner was driven out from the house by the wife and children.

He also relied on the decision in the case of Mugappa Vs. Smt. Muniyamma, (2003) 2 DMC 188 : (2003) 2 KCCR 114 SN , to contend that respondent''s sons who are well placed can look after their mother instead of seeking maintenance from the husband. In the said case, this Court has held that the husband is an old man unable to maintain himself and unable to live independently without anybody''s assistance. The children are well placed in life. Only with malicious motive, the respondent has filed a petition seeking maintenance. Instead since all the children are well placed she could have sued her sons for providing maintenance. Therefore, he sought for setting aside the order of Family Court.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and perused the entire material on record.

The admitted facts are that the marriage is not disputed. Out of their wedlock two sons and a daughter was born and they were living together more than 3 decades as husband and wife and after lapse of nearly 30 years the trouble started in the family. It is alleged in the claim petition, that the respondent had illicit relationship with a lady for more than four years and thereby the trouble started in the family. It is also not in dispute that PW.1 specifically stated on oath that she performed marriage of daughter Jyothi and at that time the respondent/husband did not co-operate and in spite of her approaching ''Pariwar'' and NGO at Sadhanakeri, Dharwad, with an intent to settle the matter, but the respondent did not heed to their advise. She has denied the suggestion that, the children are employed and looking after her and she does not require any maintenance. It is not in dispute, that according to the petitioner/husband, who is examined as RW.1, has stated that he purchased a plot at the age of 21 years and he constructed a house thereon. What was earning at the age of 21 years is not stated by him nor produced any material to that effect. The Family Court also recorded a finding that materials on record disclose that for the last 7 years the respondent has been neglected to maintain the petitioner/wife. It is a fact that respondent/husband is a M.A., M.Ed. double Graduate who joined the service at the age of 29 years and it cannot be believed that now he is unemployed and not earning any income. The petitioner/wife categorically stated in her evidence, that respondent is working as professor in Basaveshwar College, Navanagar, Hubli and is getting lucrative salary and he is also having agricultural property at Nagalavi village. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed that petitioner-husband cannot maintain respondent-wife. Therefore, the family court has held, in view of oral and documentary evidence of both sides, petitioner/wife has proved the relationship with the respondent/husband and respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner, though he has got sufficient income. The petitioner being husband has moral duty to maintain his own wife under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and he cannot shift his responsibility on the sons and we do not know how the sons are behaving with the mother and father and there is no material before the court that sons are employed and looking after the mother. The facts in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Mugappa v. Muniyamma, are entirely different from the facts of the present case and the same is not applicable to the present case.

The family court considering the entire material on record only granted a sum of Rs. 1000/-per month as maintenance, that too, in the present day living costs. This is a meager amount. Unfortunately, the respondent has not filed any revision for enhancement. Therefore, considering the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is in accordance with law and no interference is called for under the revisional jurisdiction.

Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.

Consequently, I.A.2/2014 for stay does not arise for consideration.