Ramesh vs Kumada

B. Veerappa, J.

The husband has filed this revision petition against the order dated 01.04.2014 made in Crl. Misc. Case No. 57/2012 granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to the respondent/wife from the date of petition till realization.

The brief facts of the case are;

It is the case of the wife-respondent that she filed Crl. Misc. No. 57/2012 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner/husband claiming maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m., alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein and their marriage was performed on 22.06.2007 at Smt. Munnabai Ishwarsa Khode Kalyan Mantap, Gadag-Betageri as per Hindu customs and rituals. After the marriage, the respondent went to matrimonial house to lead marital life. At the time of marriage, the parents of the respondent have paid Rs. 40,000/- dowry, three tolas of gold and Rs. 2,000/- for cloth and household utensils worth Rs. 40,000/- as per the demand made by the petitioner/husband. They led happy married life for about six months. Thereafter, the petitioner and his family members started to harass her to meet their illegal demand of dowry. They always ill-treated the respondent and demanding to bring Rs. 1,00,000/- cash from her parental house. The respondent tried to convince the petitioner and his family members as her parents are unable to pay further dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner and his family members increased their ill-treatment and harassed her both physically and mentally. They never allowed her to sleep with the petitioner and abused her and her parents in filthy language and they threatened to her life by pouring kerosene oil and setting fire on her. It is also alleged that they never allowed her to speak with the neighbouring persons and they always forced her to give divorce to the petitioner. The petitioner and her family members were forcibly giving her tablets, on account of which she lost conscious. When she refused to take tablets, all the members assaulted and beaten her mercilessly. They tried to finish her by opening gas stove. When she came to know the smell of the gas, she closed it. In spite of it, all the family members tried to finish her on several attempts. She tolerated all their harassment with a hope that petitioner may change in future. But on 14.08.2009, the petitioner forcibly driven her out of the house. He has not made any arrangement for her maintenance. The respondent is not having any source of income. She is unable to do any work due to the ill-treatment of the respondent and his family members. The petitioner is working as pigmi collector in Sai Co-operative Bank, Bank Road, Gadag and earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and he is also having ancestral property and earning Rs. 60,000/- P.A. He is also having own house. Therefore, she filed the petition seeking maintenance from the petitioner.

The petitioner/husband appeared before the Family court. He filed objections denying all the averments except the marriage relationship with the respondent. He contended that knowing fully well about the background of the respondent, he got married with her. The entire expenses of the marriage were incurred by the petitioner and they got married with the hope that she would adjust and accommodate with his family. The respondent led normal marital life only for few months. Thereafter, she started expressing her dissatisfaction for her marriage. She was reluctant in leading marital life. She never mingled with the family members at matrimonial house. She was in the habit of going to her parental house and she hardly spent about 3-4 months in her matrimonial home. Initially, the petitioner tolerated the same thinking that the respondent may change her attitude in future. But the respondent very soon proved that she is least interested in marital life. She has no issues out of the wedlock. She is adamant in nature. The family of the petitioner is staying with his aged parents and brothers. The respondent had no regard to other family members in her matrimonial house. The strange attitude of the respondent has very much disturbed the family life of the petitioner. The petitioner was ready and willing to discharge his marital obligation. But the respondent left the matrimonial home due to her disinterest in marital life. It is also contended that the respondent is a qualified lady and she had done B.Ed. She is employed and getting handsome income as salary. In spite of that, she filed the petition for maintenance only to harass the petitioner. The petitioner also filed M.C. No. 33/2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Gadag seeking decree of divorce and the said petition is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further contended that, the respondent with mala fide intention has lodged a private complaint before the JMFC, Hubli against the petitioner and his family members and sought for dismissal of the petition.

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

i. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent deserted, neglected or refused to maintain the petitioner though he is having sufficient income?

ii. Whether the petitioner proves that she is unable to maintain herself?

iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance? If so, on what quantum?

iv. What order?

In order to establish her claim, the respondent/wife examined herself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got marked documents at Exs. P-1 to P3. On the other hand, the petitioner/husband examined himself as RW-1, but no documents are marked.

After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court, by the impugned order dated 01.04.2014, allowed the petition in part, granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to the wife, from the date of the petition till realization. Against the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the husband.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties to lis.

Sri Vishwanath Hegde for Sri Anant Hege, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband specifically contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court, granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to the wife, is exorbitant and without any basis. The petitioner is not doing any work and he is unemployed and his father is a retired Government servant getting meager amount of pension. He also contended that the respondent is a qualified lady and is working as a teacher in a private school getting handsome of salary and the petitioner is a coolie not having sufficient income. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

Per contra, Sri Rajananda Ladkhan, learned counsel for the respondent/wife, sought to justify the impugned order.

I have given ray thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged and perused the entire material on record.

It is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 22.06.2007 and the relationship of the petitioner with the respondent is not disputed. The only dispute made by the husband is that the respondent/wife is a B.Ed. graduate and is serving as a teacher, and hence she is not entitled for any maintenance.

The respondent/wife examined as PW-1 has specifically stated that, at the time of her marriage, her parents gave Rs. 40,000/- cash, two tolas of gold, household utensils of Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner. She has also stated that, she is unemployed and not doing any teacher job as alleged. The said denial is not substantiated by the husband by producing material documents to show that his wife is also earning for her maintenance. PW-2 who is an independent witness on behalf of the wife, has stated that the respondent belongs economically moderate family. He also denied that respondent never adjusted in the joint family of the petitioner and as such, she herself deserted her matrimonial house. The petitioner, who is examined as RW-1, has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that, since last four years, the respondent is living in her parental house and he has not issued any legal notice to her calling upon her to join him and he has not filed any matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights. He has also admitted that, at the time of marriage, he was working as pigmy collector in Om Sai Co-operative Society, Gadag-Betagen. He has also admitted that the respondent led marital life with him only for a period of two years but only two months she led happy marital life with him. The wife also stated that her husband/petitioner is a pigmi collector and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and he is having a house and landed property. RW-1 - husband admitted in his evidence that, at the time of marriage, he was working as pigmi collector and he has not denied that he is a pigmy collector and having a house and landed property.

The material documents clearly indicates that the petitioner/husband is capable of maintaining the respondent-wife and he has not produced any document to show that the respondent can maintain herself in the absence of maintenance provided by the husband. In view of the provisions of Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner got sufficient means and it is his bounden duty to maintain his wife.

Taking into consideration the material evidence of PW 1 and 2, RW 1 and Exs. P1 to P3, the Family Court recorded a specific finding of fact, that the respondent/wife proved her relationship with the petitioner/husband and the petitioner has willfully deserted and refused to maintain the respondent, though he got sufficient income and she is unable to maintain herself; therefore, it is the moral as well as legal duty on the part of the petitioner to maintain his wife under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and accordingly granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of petition. The said order passed by the Family Court is based on the legal evidence on record and the same is in accordance with law and no interference is called for under revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner before this Court, the same is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent/wife forthwith.