Mohanrao Madhavrao Soratur vs Mangala

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 17/8/2015 passed by the Family Court, Hubli, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the respondent''s application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent, the petitioner, Mr. Mohanrao Soratur, has approached this Court.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner, was married to the respondent, Smt. Mangala on 29/5/1973 according to the Hindu rites and customs. During the wedlock, three children were born. After having spent fifteen years of happily married life, difference arose between the couple and they parted company in 1987. Since the respondent was unable to maintain herself and her children, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. However, the said application ended up with a compromise between the parties. Subsequently, the respondent filed a second application in the form of OS No. 130/1992 before the Additional Civil Judge, Hubli. The said application was allowed, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge granted a maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent and the three children each. Since the petitioner did not implement the said decree, the respondent was forced to file an execution petition, namely, E.P. No. 198/1995 for claiming the arrears of maintenance. The said execution petition was disposed of by the Executing Court by order dated 15/6/1995.

The respondent again filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Hubli, wherein she prayed for maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The petitioner (as the respondent in the said application) filed his written statement. In his written statement, he pleaded that his wife was not entitled to claim any maintenance as she was living in adultery. Therefore, taking the benefit of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. he claimed before the Family Court, that the wife is disentitled for getting a maintenance from him.

On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Family Court framed issue No. 1 as under:

"Whether the respondent proves that the petitioner is living in adultery as such she is not entitled for maintenance as claimed in this petition?"

With regard to the said issue, the learned Family Court answered the said issue in the negative; by order dated 17/8/2015, allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. Rohit S. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court:--

Firstly, that the petitioner has contended that after the respondent left the matrimonial home, he realised that she is living in adultery. In order to prove the factum of adultery, he has produced a particular letter, which was marked as Ex. R1. The letter, written by one Prabhakar, is sufficient to prove that the respondent was living in adultery. However, the learned Family Court has ignored the existence of the said letter; it has committed an illegality in a denying the benefit of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Family Court has clearly noticed that although the letter is written by one Prabhakar (Ex. R1), but, it was subject to proof. No one has proved the contents of the said letter. Therefore, obviously the said letter could not be read in favour of the petitioner.

Moreover, the learned Family Court has noticed the fact that although the petitioner claims that while his wife was living with him he had realised that she was having an extramarital relationship with her previous lover, although he claims he has advised his wife, against such unbecoming behaviour, yet in his written statement filed in the first application moved by the respondent, wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., he had not raised the said plea. Therefore, the learned family Court was justified in concluding that the defence of adultery being narrated by the petitioner against the wife is merely an afterthought.

Furthermore, the learned Family Court has noticed the fact that the petitioner in his cross examination has clearly admitted that he is getting a pension amount of Rs. 23,000/- per month, that he has property at Shirahatti and has vacant site and he let out shops for rentals. Therefore, he has sufficient means for supporting the respondent.

Most importantly, the learned Family Court has also noticed the fact that without getting the divorce from the respondent, the petitioner has admitted the fact that he has remarried and has a son from his second wife.

Considering the fact that the petitioner had never raised the plea of extra-marital affairs of the wife in the first maintenance application filed by her, considering the fact that it is the petitioner himself who has entered into a second marriage without seeking a legal divorce from his first wife, obviously, it is the petitioner who is in the wrong. Therefore, the learned family Court was unjustified in dismissing the contentions raised by the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has sufficient means of supporting the respondent, considering the fact that the respondent has to look after both herself and her children a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- cannot be said to be a unreasonable amount.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.