Hemaraddi vs Yallawwa and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—Thus husband has filed the above writ petition against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2013 in Crl.Misc. No. 96/2013 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Gadag granting maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the son.

It is the case of the 1st respondent before the Family Court that marriage between her and the petitioner was solemnized on 15.05.1992 and out of their wedlock, the 2nd respondent-son was born. It is the further case of the 1st respondent that the petitioner-husband used to ill-treating her and demanded to transfer of the only landed property in his favour as she is the only daughter to her father. But she showed her inability as the said property was standing in the name of the sister of her father. But the petitioner did not care and stuck to his demand. When his demand was not materialized, he used to beat her mercilessly.

It is the further case of the 1st respondent that in the month of October 1993, the petitioner was beaten her and she was thrown out from her in-law house. The petitioner has torn off the ''Mangala Sutra'' of her and snatched away. Though she was carrying the 2nd respondent in her womb, the petitioner-husband did not care and sent her to parental house at Hulkot. All efforts of the elders to joint them are vent in vain. Ultimately, she filed the petition for maintenance.

The petitioner-husband filed objection denied all the allegations including the relationship between him and the respondents No. 1 and 2.

After considering the material on record, the family Court by its impugned order dated 06.12.2013, has granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to each of the respondents from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the order passed by the family Court, this petition is filed by the husband.

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

Sri. Prashanth Hosamani, learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband has contended that there is no relationship between the petitioner and respondents. Therefore, they are not entitled any maintenance and also contended that the impugned order passed by the family Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

Per contra, Sri. Prashanth V. Mogali, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the family Court.

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

The admitted facts are that the marriage between the petitioner and 1st respondent was solemnized on 15.05.1992 is held to be proved base don the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and the material document at Exs.P1 to P13 by the Family Court. The Family Court also recorded a specific finding that the 1st respondent-wife is examined as PW.1 and she clearly stated that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 clearly discloses that they are all residents of Hulkoti and the marriage of the petitioner and 1st respondent was celebrated in the year 1992 and they have also attended the marriage and also discloses that there is no contact between the petitioner and respondent from last ten years and the 2nd respondent has attained the age of majority during the pendency of the petition. In support of her contention Exs.P1 to P14 were marked before the Family Court. Ex. P1 is the application given by the 1st respondent to the Depot Manager KSRTC Hunsur Depot on 20.02.2006 and she has clearly stated in Ex. P1 that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner-husband and the 2nd petitioner is the son of the petitioner. The said application was received by the KSRTC authorities. The village panchayath authorities, Hulkoti village have clearly stated at Ex. P8 that the respondents are the wife and son of the petitioner-husband and he has neglected and deserted them from the last 13 years. Under those circumstances, the requested the authorities to conduct an enquiry and made arrangement for the maintenance of the petitioners from the respondent.

The Family Court relying upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and material document Exs.P1 to P14 has clearly held that there was a marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and summary proceedings under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the strict proof of marriage is not required while passing interim maintenance, when all the villagers have come to the Court and stated on oath that there was marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The same cannot be denied and the same has been accepted by the Family Court while passing the impugned order. The same is in accordance with law while granting maintenance the Family Court also recorded a finding that a specific finding respondent is working as a Driver and there is no document to show that he is also getting salary of Rs. 11,000/- per month and he has got every capacity to pay the maintenance amount claimed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that she has no source of income and she is leading her life by doing coolie work. The Hon''ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 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 form 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 of PWs. 1 to 4 and Exs. 1 to 14 and the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is in accordance with law and the petitioner has not made out any prima-facie case to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.