Gautam vs Viraj and Others

B. Veerappa, J—The ranking of the parties before the Family Court is referred in this R.P.F.C. for convenience.

The petitioner/husband filed the above revision petition against the order dated 02.05.2015 made in Crl. Misc. No. 216/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Belagavi, granting maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- to the first respondent-wife and Rs. 5,000/- to the second respondent-son, is before this Court.

It is the case of the respondents-wife and son before the Family Court that the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 20.07.2008 at Shri Vidhyadhiraj Kalakshetra, Kumta Road, Sirsi. Out of their wedlock, second petitioner-son was born. Since from the date of marriage the respondent and his family members started harassing her to bring dowry and gold and cash from her parental house and the respondent did not permit the first petitioner to go to her parental house. They have not provided food, cloth and medicine properly. She tolerated the harassment of the respondent and his family members with a hope that they will change their attitude in future, but went in vain. It is her further case that at the time of birth of the male child, the relatives visited the hospital and at that time the respondent became upset and made said fact as a big issue and quarreled with the petitioner and abused her in front of nurses of the hospital. Child was 4 kg. Weight at the time of birth. Subsequently, weight was reduced. Hence, she decided to go to her parental house to take proper care and treatment of child, for which she requested the respondent but he has not permitted to go to her parental house. On 20.07.2012 she was ousted from her conjugal home along with child. She tried to talk with the respondent near Hotel Ramdev but the respondent not even touched the child and tried to beat the petitioner. He has neglected and refused to maintain them without any reason. Therefore, she was constrained to issue legal notice, which was relied by him. Petitioner further contended that she has no means to maintain herself and her child and the respondent is working as a Senior Manager in Project Management at Shahapoorji Palanji Co-Op. S.P. Centre, Colaba at Mumbai and earning a handsome salary of Rs. 24 lakhs per year and also having agriculture properties and he is capable to pay maintenance. Hence, she filed the petition for maintenance.

Upon service of notice before the Family Court, the respondent filed statement and denied all the allegations except the relationship of the petitioners and contended that she was happy for 4 years living with the husband and she has discharged her marital obligations, she was sent for training in computers and was working at School. Later she joined Early Childhood Education Care Course at Mumbai. She was enrolled in the family ration card at Sirsi. She has a PAN card, which serves as her identity, also an add-on credit card was issued to her for the comfort of shopping. He also stated that he has deposited a fixed sum every month in her savings account which accumulated upto 3 lakhs by the time she left on 20.07.2012. There were no restrictions placed by the respondent. During her pregnancy the mother of the petitioner was also called by the respondent to Mumbai, who stayed for about a week. Respondent who was in service, has shifted to Kolkata where they lived together for more than a year. During the said period the respondent suffered from ectopic pregnancy and had to be operated immediately. There was no delay in providing medical attention to the petitioner whose life could be in danger if not properly taken care of. Mother of the petitioner visited after a period of more than two months on the request made by respondent. Travel expenses for the visit of petitioner''s mother were borne by him and never claimed. He also contended that he had taken care of the petitioner by providing timely nutritious food and medical facilities. Petitioner was very aggressive and was not talking to his mother but talking with her mother for lengths of time. Her attitude towards the parents of respondent was rude. He also contended that he or his parents never demanded any dowry from her parental house before or after the marriage and petitioner has visited her parental house number of times and she also visited maternal home several times. S.B. Account was also opened in her name with considerable amount transferred every month. ATM card is still with her and was used every month to withdraw money even after she left the house of respondent. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the maintenance petition.

1st Respondent-wife examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as per Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.4. Petitioner-husband examined as R.W.1 and got marked documents as per Ex. R.1 to Ex. R.17. After considering the entire materials on record the Family Court by impugned order dated 02.05.2015 has granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- to the first petitioner-wife and Rs. 5,000/- to the second petitioner-son, from the date of order. Against the said order the present petition is filed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Rajkumarlaxman A. Rajhuns, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court granting exorbitant maintenance to the wife and son of the petitioner is without any basis. The Family Court failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner which clearly depicts that the petitioner was all along ever ready to join the wife and the son and he has taken care of the wife and son by opening an ATM card in the name of his wife. Therefore, the impugned order passed is contrary to law.

Learned counsel further contended that the Family Court failed to apply its mind that the first respondent-wife is also an well educated lady and capable of earning and the husband is not liable to pay maintenance. When she refused to accompany with the petitioner, she is not entitled any maintenance. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the entire material on record.

The admitted facts are that the marriage between the petitioner and first respondent was held on 20.07.2008 and out of wedlock the second respondent was born. The dispute is only with regard to the cordial relationship between the parties. Though several contentions are urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is not proved by producing any material documents before the Family court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was working as a Senior Manager in Project Management at Shahapoorji Palanji Co-Op. S.P. Centre, Colaba at Mumbai, as can be seen from Ex. P.9. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he was working in Calcutta and was getting Rs. 11.00 lakhs salary per year and he was working in the said Project Management at Shahapoorji Palanji Co-Op. S.P. Centre, Colaba at Mumbai as Senior Manager. He also admitted in the cross-examination that he was getting salary of Rs. 24.00 lakhs per year. He further stated that package salary varies from year to year. He admitted that he has also got landed properties situated at Sirsi but he stated that he has not received any income from the said land.

The wife examined as P.W.1, she stated on oath that her husband is working as Senior Manager in Project Management at Shahapoorji Palanji Co-Op. S.P. Centre, Colaba at Mumbai, and getting Rs. 24.00 lakhs per year. Apart from the salary her husband was also getting income from landed properties. The income of the petitioner-husband and the fact that he own agricultural land is not in dispute. Further, the relationship is not disputed. When the relationship is not disputed and the petitioner-husband is not able to prove that the respondent-wife and her son were capable of maintaining themselves. It is bounden duty of the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and minor son under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Sec. 125 of 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 has held as under:

"3. 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 unperson 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."

---

Taking into consideration the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents are not entitled any maintenance and that he is ever ready and willing to take back the respondents and take care of them cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the respondent-wife till today. The Family Court after considering the entire material on record come to the definite conclusion that the petitioner-husband is capable of maintaining the respondents and has refused to maintain them and it is the obligation on the part of the petitioner to maintain them under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Such a finding of fact is based on the legal evidence on record and that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.