Ranganathappa vs Vaishnavi

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Petitioners and their counsel remained absent.

Counsel for the respondents though present, has failed to assist the Court on the ground that he has no records with him. Inevitably the Court has to go through the entire material on record.

Though the learned Counsel for the respondent failed to assist the Court, it will not absolve the Court from its responsibility to look into the merits of the case and dispose of the matter. Therefore, after going through the entire material on record, I propose to dispose of the case on merits.

The records disclose that the respondents herein are the petitioners before the trial Court in C. Misc. 162/2005. They filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein who is the respondent before the trial Court for maintenance. For the purpose of convenience, I would like to retain the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the trial Court.

Petitioner No. 1 - Vaishnavi and petitioner No. 2 - Lakshmidevi who were aged 3 years and 1 1/2 years respectively as on the date of filing of the petition, have sought for a direction to the respondent-their father to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- each to them as maintenance from the date of petition till their marriage. It is specifically contended that petitioners 1 and 2 are the daughters of the respondent. Marriage of the petitioners'' mother by name Puttamma was solemnized with the respondent about four years prior to filing of the petition with the consent of his first wife Gouramma. After the marriage they stated living together and petitioners were born during the said wedlock. Though it is alleged that the respondent was paid Rs. 25,000/- cash and jewels worth Rs. 25,000/- at the time of marriage, those are all not relevant for the purpose of disposing of the petition. It is further contended that the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain these two childrens, they are unable to maintain themselves and respondent is able to maintain them, therefore it made them to file a petition.

After service of notice to the respondent, the respondent appeared and filed his objections denying the relationship between the petitioners and himself. He has taken a specific stand that Gowramma is his wife and they did not have any children and therefore, he has absolutely no liability to maintain the petitioners. He further contended that he is unable to maintain himself and therefore there is no question of maintaining the petitioners. The trial Court in fact considering the pleadings of the parties formulated three important points which are as under:-

"1. Whether petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 prove that they are the daughters of the respondent and their mother is the wife of the respondent?

Whether the petitioners prove that the respondent is having sufficient means, but neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners?

Whether the petitioners prove that they are unable to maintain themselves?"

The parties went on with the trial. On the side of the petitioners, their mother was examined as P.W. 1 and they examined three more witnesses P.Ws. 2 to 5 and got marked Ex. P1 to P30. Respondent has examined himself as RW 1 and also examined two witnesses RWs. 2 and 3 and got marked four documents as per Ex. R1 to R4. The trial Court has appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court and came to the conclusion that the petitioners have successfully proved that they are the daughters of the respondent and on the other hand the respondent has failed to prove that they are not the daughters born through one Puttamma and that he is not the genitive father of those children.

On perusal of the documentary evidence on record a detailed order has been passed by the trial Court in order to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioners are the daughters of the respondent. I have also carefully perused the documents produced and appreciated by the trial Court. It is seen that Ex. P7 is the marriage invitation card which convinced the trial Court that the marriage of P.W. 1 was solemnized with the respondent on 26.4.2000. Ex. P15 is the birth certificate of a female child which also specifically mentioned the names of the father and mother of the said child as Puttamma and the respondent-Ranganathappa. Ex. P16 to P28 are the photographs of the marriage between P.W. 1 and the respondent. Ex. P29 is the voters'' identity card issued by the Election Commissioner which also persuaded the trial Court to come to the conclusion that the said Puttamma is the wife of the respondent Ranganathappa. Ex. P30 is the voters'' list which also disclosed the name of Puttamma as the wife of Ranganathappa.

Respondent also produced certain documents before the Court which are also appreciated by the trial Court. In fact one of the prime documents produced by the respondent is Ex. R2 with regard to the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent, which is the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sira in O.S. No. 174/2005, wherein the petitioners have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their share in the property of the respondent Ranganathappa. The said suit was filed by Puttamma, the next friend guardian of the petitioners herein. The said suit for partition came to be decreed and in fact the Civil Court has also held that the petitioners have proved that they are the children of the respondent. The trial Court has also quoted an observation made by the Civil Judge in the said suit while declaring that the petitioners are the legitimate children of the respondent. Though it is stated that an appeal was filed in R.A. No. 37/2008, the Court observed that no stay has been granted in the said case. Nevertheless for the limited purpose, the documents produced before the trial Court and the decree passed in the suit are sufficient to hold that the petitioners have established that they are the children of the respondent. Until and unless the decree passed by the trial Court is set aside, that would be binding on the parties and unless it is stayed by the appellate Court. No such documents are produced before the trial Court though the appeal was filed in the year 2008. Even before this Court also, the petitioners have never stated anything about the said appeal. At paragraph-5 of the grounds of the petition, it is stated that said appeal in R.A. No. 37/2008 also came to be dismissed on 31.8.2009.

Looking to the above facts and circumstance of the case, for the limited purpose of deciding the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the above said materials are sufficient to come to a conclusion that the petitioners are the children of the respondent.

In order to prove the income of the respondent, the petitioners have also filed sufficient documents before the Court below. Ex. P1 is the RTC extract pertaining to Sy. No. 13/2, measuring 6 acres; Ex. P2 is the RTC extract in respect of Sy. No. 21/18, measuring 3 acres; Ex. P3 is the RTC extract of Sy. No. 21/6, measuring 17 acres 8 guntas; Ex. P4 is the RTC extract in respect of Sy. No. 30/1, measuring 1 acre 8 guntas; Ex. P5 is the RTC extract of Sy. No. 31/2, measuring 1 acre 22 guntas and Ex. P6 is the RTC extract pertaining to Sy. No. 74/3, measuring 16 guntas. All these lands are standing in the name of the respondent. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that he is unable to maintain himself or his children.

When it is categorically admitted that the petitioners are not living with the respondent and the relationship itself is denied that itself amounts to neglecting them and refusing to maintain them by the respondent. What is to be established before the trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is that the respondent has neglected to maintain petitioners. Though he contended that he is unable to maintain himself, he has not substantiated the same. Therefore the trial Court has not committed any error in awarding maintenance in favour of the petitioners.

The respondent being aggrieved by the said order has also preferred a revision petition before the Fast Tract-I at Tumkur. Vide order dated 20.11.2010, the said revision petition also came to be dismissed. The revisional Court has also reappreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and came to the conclusion that there is no legal infirmity in the orders of the trial Court in believing the documentary and oral evidence of the petitioners'' mother. Having come to such conclusion, the revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition.

So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, a meager amount of Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded by the trial Court to each of the petitioners and awarding the same in favour of them till their marriage. Though Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act empowers the children, particularly female children to file a suit for maintenance after attaining majority till their marriage, awarding of maintenance by the trial Court till the marriage of the petitioners virtually facilitate the petitioners to live peacefully till their marriage. It is the responsibility of the respondent to perform their marriage. Therefore, in my opinion, respondent is having the responsibility to pay maintenance till the marriage of the petitioners. In this regard it is worth to refer decision of the Apex Court reported in Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and Others, , Apex Court held that;

''A'' "Though Sec. 125 does not fix the liability of parents to maintain children beyond attainment of majority, by right of minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act - Therefore, on a combined reading of the two provisions held, High Court was justified in upholding the order of the family Court, by which it granted maintenance under Section 125 to the daughter even after her attaining majority, but till her marriage. Taking the view that it would aroid multiplicity of proceedings as otherwise the party would be forced to file another petition under Section 20(3) for further maintenance - benefit of personal law for awarding or continuing maintenance proceedings can be given to the applicant, ineligible under Section 125 of avoid multiplicity of proceedings".

Looking to the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down in above ruling and the orders of the trial Court and the revisional Court, I do not find any strong reasons to come to any different conclusion than the one reached by the trial Court and the revisional Court. As I have stated above, counsel for the petitioners is absent and no materials are placed before this Court compelling this Court to pass any orders setting aside the orders of the trial Court and revisional Court.

Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.