Nandakumar vs Neeta

B. Veerappa, J.

The husband has filed this revision petition against the order dated 05.11.2014 made in Criminal Misc. Case No. 671/2013 granting maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. to the respondent/wife from the date of the order.

The brief facts of the case are:

The respondent/wife had filed a petition in the year 2009 in Crl. Misc. No. 473/2009 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974. against the petitioner/husband claiming maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m., when the income of the husband was only Rs. 6,000/- p.m. The Court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- p.m.

The respondent/wife has again filed a petition in Crl. Misc. No. 671/2013 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- from the petitioner/husband, alleging that petitioner had illicit relationship with another woman and has neglected and refused to maintain her. The cost of living has increased; and the salary of the petitioner is also increased; she needs Rs. 8,000/- for her monthly maintenance. Petitioner owns 2 acres 5 guntas of agricultural land and also doing milk vending business, thereby earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and also, he is working in a truck and earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- p.m. Hence, he is capable of paying enhanced maintenance, etc.

Upon notice issued by the Family Court, the petitioner/husband appeared before the Family Court and filed his objections, admitting the marriage and relationship with the respondent as his wife and that he is paying maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. to the petitioner, since last five years till today. He also admitted that he has got second wife, two children, old aged parents and one sister and her daughter. He has to maintain them by giving good education to her sister, son and her children. He is doing coolie work and getting Rs. 100/- per day. He has denied other averments made in the claim petition as false and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

"1. Whether the petitioner has made out a ground for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month against the respondent in the changed circumstances?

What order?"

In order to establish her claim, the respondent/wife is examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex. P-1. On the other hand, the petitioner/husband himself examined as R.W.-1 and one more witness as R.W.-2, but no documents are marked.

After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court, by the impugned order dated 05.11.2014, allowed the petition in part, enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- p.m. to the wife, from the date of the order. Against the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the husband.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Smt. Bhagyashree N. Bikkannavar, appearing for Sri. Ramachandra Mali, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court, granting enhanced maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. from Rs. 1,000/- to the wife, is exorbitant and without any basis. The Family Court ignored that the petitioner has second wife, two children, old aged parents, a widow sister and her daughter and thus, it is very difficult for him to pay higher maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is liable to be quashed. She further contended that the Family Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the petitioner has to pay rent, education expenses of his kids, etc. apart from maintaining himself and other family members, out of his meager income. All these material facts have not been considered by the Family Court and thereby, it has committed grave error in granting enhanced maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- p.m.. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is not tenable in law and same is liable to be set aside.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material on record.

The admitted facts are that: there is no dispute with regard to the marriage and relationship between the parties. It is not in dispute that respondent/wife had filed a petition in the year 2009 in Crl. Misc. No. 473/2009 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner/husband claiming maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and the Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- p.m.

Taking into consideration the increase in the cost of living, present market value and hike in the rates of all the essential commodities, the respondent/wife filed Crl. Misc. No. 671/2013 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- from the petitioner/husband, alleging that petitioner owns 2 acres 5 guntas of agricultural land and also doing milk vending business, thereby earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and also, he is working in a truck and earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- p.m. Hence, he is capable of paying enhanced maintenance. Though the said fact has been denied by the petitioner/husband, he has not denied the fact that he is owning agricultural land. In fact, R.W.-1 in the cross-examination has admitted that his father has got 5 acres of land and he is growing paddy crop in the land. He has also admitted that he is working in a truck. R.W.-2/father of petitioner has also admitted that the respondent require Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- p.m. to maintain the family. He also admitted that in the land owned by him, he is growing crops. He further admits that, the petitioner is working as truck driver and also doing agriculture. The contentions of the respondent have been admitted by the petitioner and his father R.W.-2 in their cross-examination. R.W.s-1 and 2 have admitted that the prices of all commodities have gone up sky level for the last six years. Respondent himself wants nearly Rs. 1,000/- to maintain his family consisting of Prema and her children and himself. He is doing agriculture besides working as a driver. He has got sufficient earning from the landed property.

Taking into consideration the fact of raise in prices of all essential commodities and the present day cost of living and the provisions of Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Family Court has enhanced the monthly maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- to the wife to lead her life at Angol, Belgaum, which is hardly sufficient for her.

Admittedly, the respondent/husband has not stated anything about the income of the petitioner/wife, nor he has stated that she can maintain herself. In the absence of any means to maintain herself, the order passed by the Family Court is in accordance with law and this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order, in the present revision petition, in exercise of power under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.