Sabbu Sunil vs Channa Vardhini

B. Veerappa, J.—The husband filed the above revision petition against the order passed by the Family Court on 11.02.2015 made in M.C.57/2014 granting maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of the order.

It is the case of the petitioner-wife before the Family Court that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 14.06.2012 at Hantha Function Hall, Kadapa, and at the time of marriage, respondent-husband demanded and received dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs and 20 tolas of gold ornaments and marriage expenses of Rs. 2 lakhs. After marriage, the respondent did not make any attempts to take the petitioner to his house till the end of September 2012. The petitioner joined the respondent in the month of October 2012 at Kadapa, where his mother was also staying with them. The petitioner immediately after joining the respondent came to know that the respondent was not interested to lead marital life with her and he was spending most of his time outside the house. So the life of the petitioner became miserable. The respondent started demanding additional dowry. The petitioner was working at Jindal earlier to the marriage and she left the job after the marriage. The respondent was very much cruel towards the petitioner and on 02.10.2013 he snatched all her articles and thrown her out of the house. Since then, the respondent did not make any efforts to take back the petitioner nor paid any maintenance for her livelihood. Since the date of marriage there is no conjugal relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as no nuptial ceremony took place and there is no cohabitation. The respondent sent words on 16.03.2014 that he is in no way interested to continue his relationship with the petitioner and has completely deserted the petitioner. The respondent is working at Bank of America, Hyderabad Branch and drawing salary of Rs. 1,25,000/- per month. The mother of respondent is also a retired employee and receiving pension and retirement benefits. The respondent is also in possession of 16 guntas of wetland at Nandyala and had cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- in his Bank Account. Now the petitioner is not able to maintain herself and she requires minimum maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- per month. Therefore, she has approached the Family Court.

The respondent husband appeared before the Family Court and filed Objections and denied the allegations except admitting his marriage with the petitioner and he also admitted that there was no cohabitation since the date of marriage, and has contended that since the marriage is not consummated therefore, it is not a legal marriage. Hence, he is not bound to pay maintenance to petitioner and denied other averments, etc.

In order to establish her case, the petitioner-wife examined as PW.1 and also examined one witness as PW.2 and marked documents Ex. P.1 to P.20. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and marked documents Ex. R1 to R.6.

After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent has drawn salary of Rs. 50,783/- in the month of September itself and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 15000/- per month from the date of the order and ordered accordingly.

Against the said order the present revision petition is filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

Smt. Suma Yalgur, representing the Sri Lakshmi kant Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner/husband, has contended that the respondent/wife is working in KPTCL, Bellan and was drawing salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month, though the respondent herself has categorically stated that she had got an appointment in KPTCL and she did not join and that she is prosecuting her further studies in M. Tech and this fact itself is sufficient to show that she is financially stable and capable of maintaining herself Therefore, the respondent-wife is not entitled to any maintenance from her husband. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing the revision petition.

Per contra, Sri. A.A. Pathan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

It is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 14.6.2012 at Kadapa, AP and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner/husband is working at Bank of America, Hyderabad Branch, and drawing salary of Rs. 1.25 lakhs per month and according to the petitioner, his take home salary in the month of September, 2014 was Rs. 50,783/-. When the relationship is not denied by the husband and he has not produced any document to show that respondent-wife is capable of maintaining herself and having sufficient means, it is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was also working in KPTCL, and thereafter she has resigned and she is pursuing her studies in M.Tech, and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance, cannot be accepted. Merely because the wife want to continue her further education to protect her future is not a ground to refuse maintenance until and unless the petitioner produce relevant document to prove that respondent/wife is capable of maintaining herself Having not done so, it is the duty of the petitioner/husband to maintain his wife. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is working as an Assistant Manager at Bank of America, Hyderabad Branch and as per Salary Certificate produced for the month of September 2014, vide Ex. P.3, his take home salary is Rs. 50,783/-. The petitioner/husband has also admitted that respondent/wife is prosecuting higher studies. Therefore, when the petitioner/husband admits about higher studies the possibility of respondent/wife working at KPRCL and is earning salary will not arise for consideration. More over, no document is furnished by the petitioner/husband to show that respondent/wife is working at KPTCL and is drawing handsome salary to maintain herself. Therefore, petitioner wife is entitled to claim maintenance as she is not having any income of her own at present. Therefore, it is the duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioner independently. Payment of maintenance to the wife is not for mere animal sustenance, but to live in dignity as she was living in the house of the husband. My view has been fortified by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena, , while considering the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has held at para-3 as under:

"3. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."

In view of the foregoing admitted facts and the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the impugned order passed by the Family Court granting Rs. 15000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of the order is in accordance with law and the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.