K. Ramakrishna vs Parvathi Devi

B. Veerappa, J.—The husband has filed this revision petition against the order dated 05.04.2014 made in Crl. Misc. Case No. 288/2013 granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to the respondent/wife during her life-time or till her remarriage.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed Crl. Misc. No. 288/2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner/husband claiming maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. and litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner, alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 30.03.2000 at Bellary. After the marriage, they lived together happily for few months. Thereafter, the petitioner started abusing her and caused mental agony by stating that she is not a fair looking lady and her physical appearance is not good and also stating that she has not attained puberty and she is incapable of getting pregnancy, etc. The respondent tried to adjust with the petitioner, but all efforts went in vain. In the meantime, the petitioner all of a sudden filed a petition for divorce; the same was closed by recording compromise petition between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent was working at Hospet, as such they had shifted their residence to Hospet. Even after the compromise, the petitioner continued to abuse the respondent and was assaulting her. Ultimately, in the month of March 2013, the petitioner had a quarrel with the respondent and drove the respondent out of the house. The respondent is residing in Bellary along with her parents and also contended that the respondent is unable to maintain herself and the petitioner is getting salary of Rs. 28,000/- p.m. and is also owning six houses and getting rent of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. from each houses, etc. Therefore, she sought for maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. from the petitioner.

The petitioner/husband appeared before the Family court. Except admitting the marriage and relationship with the respondent, he denied all other allegations. He contended that the respondent/wife used to quarrel with him and insisting him to transfer his ancestral properties in her name and she was also threatening him to commit suicide or to file false complaints. It is also stated that on 23.04.2013 when he had gone to his factory, the respondent and her father had taken all the valuable goods kept in the house and had vacated the house without his knowledge. Further, it is stated that his only income is his salary and living in a rented house. As he is also looking after his aged parents, he could not maintain the respondent separately, etc.

Upon considering the pleadings, the Family Court framed the following points:

Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to award maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. and litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/-, from the respondent?

What order?

In order to establish her claim, the respondent/wife is examined as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got marked Exs. P-1 to 5. On the other hand, the petitioner/husband himself examined as RW-1, but no documents are marked.

After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court, by the impugned order dated 05.04.2014, allowed the petition in part, granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to the wife, from the date of the order during her life time, or till her re-marriage. Against the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

Sri M. Amaregowda, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband specifically contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court, granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to the wife, is exorbitant and without any basis and the finding of the Family Court that the husband is getting salary of Rs. 23,290/- is also false. After deduction, the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 17,850/- and he is living in a rented house, by paying rent of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and also looking after his aged parents. All these material facts have not been considered by the Family Court and thereby, it has committed grave error in granting Rs. 10,000/- p.m. as maintenance. Accordingly, he sought to set aside the impugned order.

Sri Gode Nagaraja, learned counsel for the respondent/wife, sought to justify the impugned order.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged and perused the entire material on record.

It is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 30.03.2000 and after the marriage, they were residing together for hardly about 3 years. The Family Court recorded a finding that the respondent/wife has made out sufficient grounds to award maintenance.

The wife is examined as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got marked documents as Exs. P-1 to 5. PW-1 has categorically stated on oath that the husband has started ill-treating her by saying that she is not a fair looking lady and her physical appearance is not good. The said evidence is corroborated by PW-2. Ex. P-5 the salary certificate produced by the respondent clearly indicates that the petitioner is getting salary of Rs. 24,732/- p.m. and the petitioner has not produced any material document to show that the list of other family members who are under his care and custody. He has further stated in the cross-examination that he has to take care of his old aged parents. But, he has not produced any material document namely, either voter''s list or ration card to prove that other family members are residing with him. The petitioner, who is examined as RW-1, has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he is getting salary of Rs. 25,000/- p.m. and he has also not produced any document to show that he is paying Rs. 3,000/- as rent. The petitioner/husband also not produced any document to prove that the respondent/wife can maintain herself without any assistance from him and that she is having sufficient income to maintain herself. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the Family Court recorded a finding on fact at paragraph 10, which reads as under:

"10. Now, let us see the quantum of maintenance that can be awarded to the petitioner as maintenance. The petitioner has contended that the respondent is a Government Servant and he is drawing salary of more than Rs. 28,000/-. His Salary Certificate is also produced at Ex. P-12, which shows his net salary is Rs. 24,732/- per month. Now, the petitioner has claimed maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month. The respondent has denied of taking any second marriage and he did not produced any documents to show the list of other family members who are under his care and custody. So, the respondent is having sufficient income to pay maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner did not adduced any specific evidence with regard to the actual expenditure per month, towards her maintenance. However, considering the requirements of the petitioner towards her food, clothes, medication and other miscellaneous expenses and also considering the income of the respondent, it would be feasible to award marriage of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner. So, accordingly, I treat the point No. 1, in the partly affirmative." (sic)

After considering the entire arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perusing the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the finding of fact recorded by the Family Court is based on the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and RW-1 and the legal evidence as per Exs. P-1 to 5. The same is in accordance with law. Hence, no interference is called for under revisional jurisdiction.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.