G.M. Thippesh vs G.M. Amrutha

B. Veerappa, J—Husband filed the above writ petition against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2013 made in Crl.Misc. 59/2013 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bellary, granting maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to his wife from the date of the order till her life time or till her re-marriage.

It is the case of the respondent before the Family Court that she is the legally wedded wife of the present petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 08.08.2008 at Bellary and at the time of marriage the husband has received gold and jewelry and she joined the husband at her matrimonial house. Subsequently the husband, his parents and sisters showing their negative attitude and ill-treating her without any valid reason and they also started suspecting her character of the wife. She also contended that she has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in MC No. 118/2012 and the same was decreed. In spite of the said decree the petitioner did not made any efforts to take back the petitioner. She also contended that her parents are very poor and not in a position to look after her. The husband is a B.A., B.Ed. Graduate and he is working as a teacher and he is capable of getting huge income of salary. Now the wife-respondent requires minimum Rs. 2,500/- for her shelter and Rs. 2,500/- for her food and Rs. 2,000/- for her medical expenses every month. In all she requires Rs. 7,000/- per month. Therefore, she filed a petition before the Family Court.

The petitioner filed objections before the Family Court, denying the entire allegations except the relationship of husband and wife and contended that the respondent was not interested to live in the joint family of the petitioner and she was always demanding to reside separately by deserting his family members. Further, it is alleged that she was always in the habit of going to her parental house frequently without informing him and staying there and refused to return to matrimonial home. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the petition.

In order to establish her claim, wife examined as PW 1 and marked a photo as Ex. P1. Husband examined as RW 1 and no documents were marked.

After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court by impugned order dated 21.10.2013 has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of the order to the respondent. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

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

Sri M.B. Gundawade, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance at Rs. 4,000/- per month is exorbitant and against the records and the same is liable to be set aside. He also contended that the Family Court has not noticed that the petitioner attempted to get back the respondent-wife and he did not succeed and the respondent had not succeeded to give her behavior and she remains with her parent''s house. Therefore he sought to set aside the impugned order.

Per contra, Sri Gode Nagaraj, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has sought to justify the impugned order.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record. The marriage between the parties solemnized on 08.08.2008 is not in dispute. The PW 1-wife has categorically stated on oath that the petitioner-husband is a B.A., B.Ed. Graduate and is working as a teacher and is capable to get huge income of salary and she requires minimum Rs. 7,000/- per month. The husband examined as RW 1 has not denied the fact that he is a Graduate. But he has stated that, still he remained as unemployed and not working in anywhere. Therefore, the contention of the wife that he is working as a teacher cannot be accepted in the absence of any material to be produced. However, the Family Court has considered his educational qualification and in the absence of any material documents to show that he is working, has taken into consideration the age of the husband who was aged about 26 years as on the date of the filing of the petition and being a B.A., B.Ed. Graduate has presumed that certainly he could have earn money by doing teacher profession even by working in any private school and that he can even earn certain income by conducting private tuitions to the students. Therefore, it is rightly held that, his income is to be considered between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. Even if the petitioner is not conducting private tuitions and not getting any income, being a able bodied and healthy man can certainly earn Rs. 350/- to Rs. 400/- per day, which comes to Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. Considering the cost of living as on the date of petition is filed, the Family Court has granted Rs. 4,000/- per month towards food and shelter.

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

By considering the oral evidence of PW 1, RW 1 and documentary evidence produced at Ex. P1 and the in view of Law declared by the Hon''ble Apex Court as stated supra, I am of the considered opinion that the grant of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of the wife by the Family Court is based on the material evidence on record and the same is in accordance with law. Petitioner has not made out any good ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.