N. Basavaraj vs T. Haripriya and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—The petitioner/husband has filed this revision petition against the order dated 01.03.2014 made in Criminal Misc. Case No. 87/2013 granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to the wife/respondent No. 1 from the date of the order, during her life time or till her re-marriage and Rs. 2,000/- each p.m. to her children/respondent Nos. 2 to 4, from the date of the order till the date of their attaining majority.

It is the case of the respondents before the Family Court that they are the wife and children of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 took place on 09.04.2006 and out of their wedlock, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were born and the petitioner is a Primary School Teacher at Bellary District and after the marriage, petitioner and his family members started ill-treating the 1st respondent demanding further dowry and thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Kallukamba village and at that time, he kept the 1st respondent at his native place and during that time, the parents of the petitioner and other family members started assaulting the 1st respondent with a demand for additional dowry. Therefore, the 1st respondent/wife has filed a complaint, alleging dowry harassment. The petitioner/husband discarded respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without paying any maintenance. She also contended that the petitioner/husband is a School Teacher earning more than Rs. 18,000/- p.m. and he is also having immoveable property at his native place and earning sufficient income out of the same. Therefore, she sought for maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- each p.m.

The petitioner/husband filed objections denying all the allegations, except admitting the relationship with the respondents/wife and children. He also contended that the wife has converted to Christianity without his consent and he also filed petition in M.C. No. 1/2008 for restitution of conjugal rights, subsequently it was compromised, etc. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

Considering the pleadings, the family Court framed the following points:

"(i) Whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds to award maintenance as sought in the petition?

(ii) What order?"

In order to establish her claim for maintenance, the wife is examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs. P-1 to 9. On the other hand, the respondent examined as RW-1 and got marked Exs. R-1 to 12.

After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court by the impugned order dated 01.03.2014 has allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to the wife/respondent No. 1 from the date of the order, during her life time or till her re-marriage and Rs. 2,000/- each p.m. to her children/respondent Nos. 2 to 4, from the date of the order till the date of their attaining majority. Against the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the husband.

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

Sri. Rajashekhar R. Gunjalli, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance to the respondents is against the law of probabilities and the same is not sustainable in law and also contended that the evidence on record clearly shows that the petitioner is getting gross salary of Rs. 21,400/- p.m. After deduction, the petitioner is getting net salary of Rs. 14,659/- p.m. only. While passing the impugned order, the Family Court has not considered the same, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

Sri. T. Basnagoud, learned counsel for the respondents, sought to justify the impugned order.

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

It is a fact that the marriage is not in dispute and out of their wedlock, respondent Nos. 2 to 4/children were born and that there is a case and counter case by the husband and wife. Subsequently, the respondents/wife and children, filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- each per month.

It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/husband is working as a School Teacher and getting gross salary of Rs. 21,400/- p.m. and after deduction, the net salary of Rs. 14,459/- p.m. it is the specific case of the wife that her husband and his parents have got substantial properties at his native place. Apart from the same, her mother-in-law is working as an Anganawadi Teacher and it is also stated that when she was pregnant for the third child, neither the husband nor his parents have attended and not even contacted over phone. The husband examined as RW-1 stated on oath that he owns house at his native place and he has not denied that he is a Teacher earning more than Rs. 21,400/- p.m., as per Ex. P-9. Though, several contentions are urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to free education of the children, thereby, he sought for reduction of maintenance to the children from Rs. 2,000/- p.m. to Rs. 1,000/- p.m., the said contention has been denied by PW-1 in her cross-examination. Even assuming that the children are studying under free education, inspite of the same, they require minimum maintenance for food, educational expenses and other miscellaneous expenses of day-today life. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, RW-1, entire material on record at Exs. P-1 to 9 and Exs. R-1 to 12, the Family Court has recorded a finding that the wife and children have no means to maintain themselves and the husband has got sufficient means and capacity to maintain them and it is the legal duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and children. Accordingly, the Family Court passed the impugned order, granting Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to the wife/respondent No. 1 from the date of the order, during her life time or till her re-marriage and Rs. 2,000/- each p.m. to her children/respondent Nos. 2 to 4, from the date of the order till the date of their attaining majority. The same is in accordance with law. No interference is called for to exercise revisional powers under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.

Since, the matter is disposed of on merits, question of considering IA No. 1/2014 does not arise.