Hanamant Tippanna Asangi vs Roopa

B. Veerappa, J.

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/husband against the order of the Family Court, Gadag, granting maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. to the respondent/wife.

The brief facts of the case in a nut shell are that, the Respondent/wife filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 26/2013 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month, alleging that the petitioner and respondent married on 01.06.2009 at Siddrameshwar Kalyan Mantap, Behind Kerudi Hospital, Bagalkot and after the marriage, she came to the house of the respondent to lead married life and they have no issues.

It is further alleged that the parents of the respondent are very poor and inspite of the same, they have given Rs. 1,10,000/- cash and 2 1/2 tola of gold to the petitioner as dowry and the family members of the respondent were always harassed by the petitioner to bring more dowry and the respondent is very mild in nature. She has tolerated the cruelty meted to her by the petitioner and his family members, to bring more dowry from her parents house.

It is also contended that the petitioner got a sister by name Fakiravva and she is working as a nurse in a Government Hospital. She is unmarried and she is residing with the petitioner. Another sister by name Smt. Parvati is also staying in the house of the petitioner. Both the sisters used to beat the respondent inhumanely and they were not at all providing food to the respondent and they made her starve. It is also alleged that the petitioner has also got an younger brother by name Chandrashekar and he used to behave abnormally with the respondent and abuse her in filthy language. Inspite of that, respondent tolerated the same and the petitioner is also addicted to gambling and used to spend all his salary to bad habits and in view of the same, respondent has suffered mentally and physically and feeling ill, etc.

Respondent is not having any source of income to maintain herself and her parents are also very poor and they have no capacity to maintain the respondent. It is also contended that the petitioner is having sufficient means, as he is working as a Conductor in KSRTC, Bagalkot Division and getting salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month. In addition, he is also having valuable properties and bungalows at Bagalkot and now, worth more than Rs. 25,00,000/-. The petitioner is also having landed properties at Asangi village and he is getting more than Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-income from the agricultural land. Even though, he is having sufficient income, he has completely neglected and deserted the respondent/wife, etc. Therefore, she sought for maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month.

The petitioner, who was the respondent before the Family court, filed objections and denied all the allegations, except the relationship with the respondent. It is specifically contended that the respondent has lived with the petitioner only for a period of eight days at the first instance. Thereafter, when the petitioner came to the house of the respondent for the second time, she stayed for another period of one week and in that period, she continued her previous attitude in leading marital life and she was not interested to lead marital life with the petitioner and her parents forcibly insisted her to get married with the petitioner, etc. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Based the on the above pleadings, the family Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent and his family members have subjected her to utmost cruelty and thrown her out of the house demanding more dowry from the petitioner?

Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has neglected and deserted her without any sufficient cause?

Whether the respondent proves that the petitioner is a quarrel some lady and she used to pickup quarrel with him and with his family members for no fault and she ran away from the house about 2 1/2 years back and she is residing in her parents house on her own?

Whether the petitioner is entitle for a monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000/-from the respondent?

What order?"

In order to establish her case, the respondent examined herself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and marked documents as Exs. P-1 to 7. On the other hand, the petitioner examined himself as RW-1 and another witness as RW-2, and marked the documents as Exs. R-1 to 3.

After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is having sufficient means and it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain the respondent and accordingly, granted her a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as the monthly maintenance from the date of the petition. Against the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the husband.

Sri. H.M. Darigond for Sri. Sadiq N. Goodwala, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband specifically contended that the respondent/wife is also employed and getting Rs. 5,000/- per month, which fact has not been considered by the Family Court and further, contended that, out of the salary of Rs. 8,000/-, the petitioner has to maintain his two sisters and aged mother. The said aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the Family Court. Therefore, he sought for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

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

The fact that the marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 01.06.2009 is not in dispute. Though, the petitioner has denied that he is not working in the Government Department, the material documents establish that he is working as a Conductor in KSRTC, getting salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month and he is having landed properties. It is also not in dispute that one sister Fakiravva is also working as Nurse in a Government Hospital, which fact is suppressed by the petitioner.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Family Court has not considered the income of the respondent cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Family Court while considering the entire material on record specifically recorded a finding that the petitioner/husband has not at all produced any document to show that the respondent/wife is working in a Hostel at Hulkoti and is getting salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner fails.

So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, out of Rs. 16,000/-, the petitioner has to maintain two sisters and mother cannot be accepted. It is also an admitted fact that one of his sister is also working as Nurse in a Government Hospital and she is getting sufficient salary and admittedly, the petitioner has suppressed the said fact. Apart from getting salary from his job as a Conductor in KSRTC; he owns several landed properties at Bagalkot as per the evidence of PWs-1 and 2.

Considering the entire material on record, both oral and documentary, the Family Court came to the definite conclusion that the petitioner is having sufficient income and is duty bound to maintain his wife. The same is in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The said finding of fact recorded by the Family Court is based on the legal evidence on record and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.

Since, the petition is dismissed on merits, question of considering IA No. 2/2014 does not arise.