Gangaiah vs K.B. Prameela

Aravind Kumar, J.—Respondent has filed this revision petition challenging the order passed by III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Crl. Mis. No. 511/2012 dated 07.12.2013, whereunder petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month each by wife and children, came to be allowed-in-part directing the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to wife and Rs. 5,000/- to each of children.

Heard Sri. K. Narayana, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and Sri. P. Mahadevaswamy, learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the order in question and also the pleadings as well as deposition of the parties made available by the learned counsel for revision petitioner during the course of his arguments.

The grievance of revision petitioner is that the Family Court without affording an opportunity to revision petitioner herein, has passed the order in question directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and children, which is contrary to admitted facts and it is submitted by Sri. K. Narayana, learned counsel for revision petitioner that if an opportunity is extended to revision petitioner, he would be able to place material before the Family Court to establish that sufficient and permanent alimony had been paid to wife and children and as such, there is no need to pay maintenance every month. Hence, he seeks for setting aside the order in question and prays for remanding the matter back to Family Court for fresh adjudication.

Per contra, Sri. P. Mahadevaswamy, learned counsel appearing for respondents would support the order passed by Family Court and contends that though sufficient opportunity came to be granted to revision petitioner, he did not appear and cross-examine P.W. 1 and as such, on the basis of evidence available on record, Family Court has ordered maintenance and said order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity calling for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, he prays for dismissal of revision petition.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of order under challenge as also deposition and exhibits tendered by P.W. 1, it would indicate that first petitioner therein namely, wife tendered her evidence by examination-in-chief dated 25.09.2013 and for cross-examination it was listed on 22.10.2013 and thereafter, it was further adjourned to 31.10.2013 and on the said date, learned Advocates appearing for both the parties were absent and as such, evidence of parties came to be closed and matter was posted for orders on 07.12.2013. Though order sheet would indicate that opportunity had been granted to revision petitioner to cross-examine PW. 1, in the light of plea raised by revision petitioner-husband in the statement of objections filed before the Family Court, this Court is of the considered view that one more opportunity is required to be extended to revision petitioner to substantiate his claim. However, to ensure that matter is not prolonged, this Court is of the view that if revision petitioner is put on terms it would meet the ends of justice. Since, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties and the fact that two minor children are being taken care of by the wife namely, first respondent herein, it would be necessary to protect their interest by taking note of the fact that even during the pendency of proceedings before the Family Court, interim maintenance had been granted and same was being paid.

In the light of above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Revision petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) Order passed by III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Crl. Mis. No. 511/2012 dated 07.12.2013, is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to Family Court for adjudication afresh and it shall expeditiously dispose of the petition, which shall not be later than two months from the date of appearance of parties and subject to revision petitioner continuing to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- to first respondent herein and Rs. 3,000/- to each of respondents 2 and 3 during the pendency of proceedings. Revision petitioner shall also pay past maintenance, if not already paid and if there is any balance amount, it shall be paid by the revision petitioner on the next date of hearing before the Family Court directly to first respondent and payment of such balance amount shall be condition precedent for permitting the revision petitioner to proceed with the matter.

(iii) Maintenance amount to be paid by revision petitioner shall be calculated by Family Court on the basis of amount as has been ordered in this revision petition.

(iv) Both parties are directed to appear before Family Court on 10.11.2014 without waiting for any further Court notice.