Rajaram vs Yashoda

B. Veerappa, J.—The petitioner-husband filed the above revision against the order dated 1st October 2013 made in Crl. Misc. No. 579/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Belgaum granting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of order by exercising his power under Section 127 of Cr.P.C.

The respondent-wife filed Crl. Misc. No. 160/2000 for maintenance on the file of the Family Court, which came to be allowed by its order dated 27.01.2001 and directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner before the Family Court also contended that her daughters are married, now the market rates and essential commodities have risen to sky level during these 13 years and she is not keeping good heath due to her old age. She is suffering from BP and sugar and she has to spend Rs. 2,000/- per month for her day to day expenses, medicine, travelling and she has to pay electricity charges of Rs. 500/- per month and Rs. 500/- for cooking gas and Rs. 1,000/- for house rent. It is not possible for her to maintain herself in Rs. 500/- per month in these costly days. Therefore, she required Rs. 5,000/- per month towards her maintenance and day to day expenses. She also alleges that the respondent is serving in Zilla Panchayat Office, Joida. In the year 2000 he was getting salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month. Now he is getting Rs. 25,000/- per month and having a house worth Rs. 20,000/- at Ramanagar and after retirement he would be getting a service benefits of Rs. 15,00,000/-. He is capable to pay the enhanced maintenance etc.

Upon service of notice by the Family Court, the respondent/petitioner appeared and the matter was referred to conciliation, which failed. The respondent has filed statement of objections contending that there is no cause of action for filing the petition. The respondent is paying maintenance of Rs. 900/- per month instead of Rs. 500/- per month. His daughters are staying in their respective husband''s houses. He continued to pay the maintenance, which is sufficient for her to lead her life and denied other averments of the petition as false and prays for dismissal of the petition

Based on pleadings the Family Court framed the following issues:

"1) Whether the petitioner has made out a grounds for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/- against the respondent in the changed circumstances?

2) What order?"

In order to establish her claim, the respondent-wife examined herself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents at Ex. P1. The petitioner-husband himself has examined as RW1 and got marked the document as Ex. R1.

After considering the entire materials on record, the Family Court has granted Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of order. Against the said order, the respondent/husband filed the present petition.

Smt. Geetha K.M., the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has not considered the materials on record and granting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month is on the higher side and the petitioner is ready and willing take back his wife. Therefore, she sought for setting aside the order of the Family Court.

Sri. Santosh B. Rawoot, the learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order.

I have given my thoughtful consideration on the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the entire materials on record.

The admitted facts are earlier the wife filed Crl. Misc. No. 160/2000 and the Court has granted the monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month by order dated 27.01.2001. The petitioner has not disputed the marriage with the respondent and she denied that she cannot maintain herself. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner being the employee of Zilla Panchayat, Joida and he is getting monthly salary of Rs. 19,374/- in the year 2013 and he is now getting salary of Rs. 18,000/-, in the cross-examination he admits that there was no divorce taken place between him and the respondent. He also admits that he had illicit relationship with one Rajashree. The petitioner also admits that after retirement, he may get pension of Rs. 25,000/- per month, but he denied that he will get service benefits of Rs. 19,00,000/- but he will receive only Rs. 4,00,000/-. He also fairly admits that his wife i.e., respondent is suffering from BP and sugar and his mother was no more and the respondent has no issues. It is clear from the admitted facts that the petitioner is getting more than Rs. 18,000/- per month salary and in view of the admissions, pleading and materials on record clearly establishes that the respondent-wife is not capable of maintaining herself and the petitioner is capable of maintaining the respondent. Considering the financial status of the petitioner the Family Court has greatened monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife by exercising its power under the provisions of Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and the same is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order in the present revision petition exercising the power under the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.