Girijawwa vs Hanamappa

B. Veerappa, J.

The wife filed the above petition against the order dated 11.09.2014 in Crl.Misc. No. 185/2013 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Gadag dismissing the petition for maintenance filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is the case of the wife before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place about 30 years ago and out of their wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to a daughter by name Uma, now she is aged about 28 years and married with one Halappa in the year 2004. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the marriage of the daughter, the respondent and family members started ill treating the petitioner on one reason or the other, more particularly teasing upon the character of the petitioner. Their allegation in respect of chastity is baseless and false. They all beat the petitioner inhumanly and threw her out of the house and tortured physically and mentally. Therefore, she started to stay with her parents at H.S. Venkatapur village and has also contended that she is an uneducated lady and has no independent income of her and she has to lead and life with the mercy of her parents at H.S. Venkatapura. Therefore, she filed the maintenance petition before the Family Court for maintenance.

The respondent-husband has filed objection before the Family Court and denied all the allegations made in the petition except the relationship between him and the petitioner and also contended that the marriage was took place about 30 years ago. He also admitted that out of their wedlock, they got one daughter and he further contended that after the marriage, they lead married life only for 10 years and he specifically denied all the allegations that he and his brothers have ill treated the petitioner and harassed her physically and mentally.

The respondent-husband has further contended that the petitioner by birth is adamant in nature. She has married with the respondent against her will and wish since beginning of her marriage, she never co-operated with the respondent. The respondent has tolerated all the acts of the petitioner and lead marital life with her. He further contended that the petitioner is leading adulterous life with one Sangappa S/o. Hanamappa Shanawad resident of Muganur village since last 7 years. When the petitioner and Sangappa caught hold by the respondent, the elders of Muganur village warned Sangappa and the petitioner. After that, the petitioner left the Muganur village. She started residing at H.S. Venkateapur village in Gadag taluk till today. The petitioner is leading adulterous life with the said Sangappa. He used to stay at H.S. Venkatapur as if he is the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner never cared for him. Due to this conduct, the respondent has suffered mentally and physically and he lost his reputation in the village. Such being the true facts, she has filed the baseless petition against him and he is residing in Janata house and absolutely there is no source of income and he is leading his life with great difficulty. The respondent further contended the petitioner is the only daughter to their parents and there is no other male person to her parents. The parents of the petitioner having an agricultural land bearing its R.S. No. 2/2+3a measuring 10 acres 34 guntas situated at H.S. Venkatapur village in Gadag taluk and it is in the joint name of the petitioner and her mother Yamanawa. She and her mother are also having one house in GPC No. 207 and back yard in GPC No. 223 which are also situated at Venkatapur village. It is also contended that the petitioner and her mother have sold 1 acre 22 guntas of land to the Government on 11.08.2011 for sale consideration of Rs. 8 Lakhs. The sale consideration is with the petitioner and her mother. In addition to this, the petitioner is getting agricultural income from the remaining land of Rs. 6 Lakhs to Rs. 8 Lakhs per year. The petitioner is having sufficient means of income in her parental house.

It is also contended by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner and the daughter of the respondent and the mother of the petitioner have filed partition suit against him and his brothers in O.S. No. 189/2011 before Civil Judge Senior Division at Gadag and it is still pending. Only to harass him, the petitioner has filed the maintenance petition.

In order to establish her claim, the petitioner herself examined as PW.1 and marked documents at Exs. P1 to P6. The respondent himself examined as RW.1 and marked documents as Exs. R1 and R2. After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court by its impugned order dated 11.09.2014, has dismissed the maintenance petition holding that the petitioner has failed to establish before the Court that she is unable to maintain herself and the respondent is having capacity to pay the maintenance amount claimed by the petitioner. When the petitioner herself had left the company of the respondent and she is staying in her parents house according to her own wish and will by leading her independent life, the respondent is not liable to pay any maintenance amount to the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the petition filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the said order, the present civil petition is filed.

I have heard learned Counsel Sri. H.N. Gularaddi for the petitioner.

The learned Counsel has contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court rejecting the claim for maintenance by the petitioner is erroneous and the Family Court has failed to see that the petitioner has been neglected women by the respondent and she is not having any independent source of income. He also contended that the properties which are shown by the respondents are all standing in the name of her mother and she is leading her life with the mercy of her mother and the Family Court without there being any material document, come to a conclusion that the Government has acquired two acres of land of the mother of the petitioner and granted Rs. 8 lakhs that is no ground to reject the maintenance of the petitioner. It is the duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioner. Therefore, he sought to set aside the order passed by the Family Court.

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

The admitted facts are that the petitioner is the wife of respondent and the marriage took place about 30 years ago and out of their wedlock one daughter was born and she is already married. The Family Court after considering the entire material on record and considering the evidence of PW.1 and RW.1, recorded a finding that the petitioner-wife has got sufficient means to sustain herself and mainly relied upon the documents at Ex. R1-RTC which clearly discloses that the petitioner and her mother are jointly owning 9 acres 12 guntas of land in RS No. 2/2+3 at H.S. Venkatapur village.

RW-1 also clearly deposed that the Government has taken a portion of the land measuring 2 acres for Rs. 8,00,000/- sale consideration and the petitioner her mother have taken the said amount. In addition to the same, the petitioner and her mother are having house property and vacant site at H.S. Venkatapura village.

PW-1/petitioner has admitted the said fact in her cross-examination that the house situated at Venkatapura Village is worth about Rs. 10,00,000/-, but, she only stated that it belongs to her month and not to her. The fact that she is the only daughter to her mother has been admitted by her in cross-examination in categorical terms. She also admitted in the cross-examination that herself and her daughter have already filed original suit in OS No. 189/2011 before the competent Civil Court for partition and separate possession against the respondent and his brothers which is pending for adjudication.

RWs-1, 2 and 3 have categorically stated on oath that the petitioner is the only daughter to her mother Yamanawa and they are owning 12 acres of land and the RTC extract Ex. R-1 discloses, as already stated above, 9 acres 12 guntas of land is owned by the petitioner and her mother jointly and apart from that, she has not denied the fact that her mother is owning a house worth Rs. 10,00,000/- and vacant site.

Considering all these materials, the Family Court has recorded a specific finding that the evidence of RW-1 also clearly discloses that the landed property in and around H.S. Venkatapur Village is valuable and fertile lands and in view of this, the Government has taken the lands of the petitioner and her mother for Rs. 8,00,000/-. Except the petitioner, she is not at all having any dependents; she herself is owning sufficient landed properties as she is the only daughter to her mother and there are no other issues to her mother. She is owning more than the properties owned by the respondent. The respondent is a poor person having only 2 acres of land and he has also mortgaged the said land for the marriage of his daughter in the year 2005 itself. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner is capable of maintaining herself and in view of the reasons stated above, the Family Court rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, states that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself or his minor child, unable to maintain itself, are entitled for maintenance. By considering the entire evidence and pleadings of both parties, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. will not attract to the facts and circumstances of the present case of the petitioner, since, she is holding sufficient lands and she is capable of maintaining herself; she is owning large extent of agricultural lands and apart from she and her mother have received Rs. 8,00,000/- from the Government and also got a house worth more than Rs. 10,00,000/- and a vacant site. The said material fact has not been disputed by the petitioner by producing contra materials. Therefore, the Family Court considering the entire material on record passed the impugned order and the same is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.