Rakesh vs Sumangala

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—1. These two criminal petitions are arising out of common judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2014 dated 14.11.2014 by II-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapura.

For the purpose of easy understanding and convenience and to avoid repetition, ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the Trial Court is retained.

Petitioner by name Sumangala had filed a petition in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 57/2003 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2003, seeking maintenance from respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Respondents appeared before the Court and contested the proceedings. After due contest, the Court has allowed the application and awarded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of the petition.

Being aggrieved by the said order on the ground that the Trial Court has not adequately awarded maintenance, petitioner has preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2014 and vide order dated 14.11.2014 the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month to be payable from the date of petition before the Trial Court. Respondents being satisfied with the judgment of the Trial Court they did not choose to prefer any appeal before the appellate Court.

Husband has challenged the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2014 in enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs. 15,000/- and the wife has also preferred criminal petition seeking further enhancement of maintenance to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. As both the matters are connected with each other, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

There is absolutely no dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 with regard to their relationship as husband and wife. There is no dispute that they are also residing separately with each other and there is no dispute that till filing of petition, no arrangement for maintenance was made by the husband. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 1 are fighting with reference to quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court and the appellate Court.

The learned counsel appearing for husband submits before the Court that though some materials have been placed before the Trial Court and the appellate Court that husband and his family members are having some agricultural landed properties, but exact total annual income has not been established before the Court so as to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs. 15,000/- therefore, the order passed by II-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, is not proper and not on appreciation of records.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that revenue records placed before the Court clearly establish that husband and his family members have got vast landed properties which are yielding sufficiently as they have been growing sugar cane and they are all garden lands. Though the Trial Court and the appellate Court have delved into the source of income of husband, but they have not taken the facts in a proper perspective and not awarded maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- as prayed by the wife. Therefore, considering all the surrounding circumstances, he requests the Court to enhance the maintenance to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- per month.

Having heard the above arguments, I have bestowed my attention to the materials on record. Both the Trial Court and the appellate Court in fact delved into the documentary evidence produced by the parties before the Court particularly, the wife. It is observed by both the Courts that respondent-husband is a MBA graduate and he has sufficient educational qualification to earn money. Moreover, petitioner''s husband is having garden land of 8 acres 25 guntas exclusively standing in his name and those revenue records disclose that he has been growing sugar cane. It is also observed by the Courts that out of survey numbers marked at Exs.P3 and P4 and also properties in Sy. No. 209/2A and 196/2A which are standing in the name of other members of the family, they have been growing crops every year. The Courts have also observed that Exs.P1 to P4 are the documents which establish that sufficient landed properties standing in the name of husband and also his family members. They have been taking crop loan to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/- per year and they are repaying the same. All these circumstances establish that they have got sufficient income from the landed properties. It is specifically stated by the wife in her evidence that respondents have got income of more than Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum. Though said aspect has been denied by the other side, when once some materials are placed before the Court by the wife, onus shifts on to the husband to establish what exactly their income out of the landed properties. Unless they show by convincing and cogent evidence there is no reason to disbelieve the documentary and oral evidence of the wife.

Even considering that a person has got income of Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum, the Court has to bestow its attention with regard to the responsibilities of husband in the family and how many members are there in the family. Admittedly, before the Trial Court six persons who are family members of the husband have been included as respondents. Even admitting that 8 acres of land are exclusively standing in the name of husband and other lands are in the name of other family members, it can be safely said that husband has got some share in the landed properties which are standing in the name of other members of the family. Therefore, even if it is agreed that there is income of Rs. 10,00,000/- again it should be subjected to apportionment amongst other members of the family. Therefore, in my opinion, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the appellate Court is reasonable compared to the maintenance amount awarded by the Trial Court. It should be borne in mind that awarding of maintenance should not be a boon to the wife nor a burden to the husband. The Court has to strike a balance between the earnings of the husband and also status of the wife. The appellate Court in fact has considered all these aspects and awarded maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Wife has not established any more facts before this Court that she is entitled for any more amount of maintenance than the one awarded by the appellate Court. Therefore, under the above circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court.

Hence, I proceed to passed the following:

ORDER

Both the criminal petitions are hereby dismissed.