M. Basavana Gouda vs Rudramma

B. Veerappa, J.—The husband has filed the above revision petition against the order dated 14.01.2015 in Crl. Misc. No. 137/2014 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bellary granting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife from the date of petition during her life time or till her re-marriage.

The brief facts of the case are:

"that the petitioner before the Family Court is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 23.05.19991, at Oravai village, Bellary Taluk and District. The respondent-husband received Rs. 10,000/- and gold jewels as dowry. The petitioner and the respondent lived together for a period of more than 6 years and the petitioner also gave birth to a female child. Subsequently, the respondent started ill-treating the petitioner only on the ground that she did not gave birth to a male child. The child also died subsequently and as such, the petitioner became mentally upset. However, the respondent continued to ill-treat the petitioner both physically and mentally. She has conducted a Panchayath, in the year 1998 and also in the subsequent years. But the respondent did not change his behaviour. Now the parents of the petitioner also dead and she is unable to maintain herself. The respondent is an agriculturist and has agricultural properties at Sanganakal Village and he is getting sufficient income. The petitioner requires minimum maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month etc."

In response to the notice issued by the Family Court, the respondent husband appeared and filed objections and denied all the allegations except admitting his marriage with the petitioner and has taken a specific defence that she has lived with him only for a period of six years and she herself left the house without his consent. Hence, the question of ill treating her does not arise and she was not properly looking after his family members and he has made several efforts to take back the petitioner to his house, but the petitioner refused to join him and on 19.03.2003, she had executed a mutual consent agreement by taking an amount of Rs. 35,000/- as permanent maintenance and started living separately. Therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Hence, sought to dismiss the petition.

To establish her case, the wife herself examined as PW.1 and marked documents at Exs. P1 to P6. Respondent himself examined as RW.1 and got examined two witnesses as RWs. 2 and 3 and got marked document at Ex. R1. Considering the entire material on record, the Family Court by its order has granted Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance to the petitioner. Therefore, the husband filed this revision petition before this Court.

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

Sri. T. Basavana gouda, learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband has vehemently contended that in view of the agreement Ex. R1, she has already taken Rs. 35,000/- as permanent maintenance and therefore, granting maintenance is erroneous and sought to allow the revision petition.

Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent-wife sought to justify the impugned order and he has contended that Ex. R1 cannot be treated as an agreement and there is no proof for payment of Rs. 35,000/- as permanent alimony. Therefore, sought to dismiss the revision petition.

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

The marriage between the parties is not in dispute. Out of their wedlock, a female child was born. The only dispute is whether the respondent-wife has executed an agreement in favour of the petitioner as per Ex. R1 by receiving maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- as permanent alimony. PW.1 in her cross-examination has specifically stated that she has not entered into any agreement with the petitioner as alleged and she has not signed the document and not received any amount of Rs. 35,000/-and on the contrary, the husband has not produced any material document to prove that she has executed agreement as per Ex. R1 and has paid Rs. 35,000/- as maintenance. In the absence of any proof and any document produced by the husband, Ex. R1 cannot be accepted at all. The respondent-husband has admitted in his cross-examination that he is having two children from the second wife. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent has taken the second marriage by discarding the petitioner without taking any decree of divorce from the Courts of Law. So living with another woman and having children as certainly an act of cruelty to one''s wife under any circumstances. The documents produced at Exs. P4 to P6 which are RTC Extracts clearly indicate that the respondent-husband is owning agricultural lands but he has denied his ownership and contended that these lands are dry lands and having no income. Considering the material on record, the Family Court recorded a finding that even the respondent is an agricultural labour his notional income can be considered as Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/- a day which come around Rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 9,000/- per month. So, considering the income of the respondent-husband as an agriculture labour and also his income from agricultural lands, certainly, he is capable of paying maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife. Even if it is construed that the respondent is bound to maintain his two parents he is equally bound to maintain his wife up to his standard of living by paying proper maintenance to the petitioner. Moreover, claiming maintenance by the wife against the respondent is not for animal sustenance, but to live in dignity as she was living in the house of the husband. The Hon''ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena, AIR 2014 SC 2875 : (2014) AIRSCW 4201 : (2014) 8 JT 359 : (2014) 8 SCALE 573 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."

Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Family Court come to the definite conclusion that the petitioner-husband is capable to pay maintenance to the respondent and the wife is entitled to Rs. 5,000/-. Taking into consideration the cost of living and considering the requirements of food, clothing, medication and shelter etc., The same is in accordance with law and the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.