Santosh vs Veena and Others

B. Veerappa, J—The husband filed the revision petition against the order dated 09.10.2014 made in Crl. Misc. 340/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Belagavi, granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to wife and Rs. 1000/- to the son from the date of the order.

It is the case of petitioner-1/wife before the Family Court, that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 22.11.2007 as per customs prevailing in their community and out of their wedlock petitioner No. 2 was born who is aged two years and he is staying with her mother. The wife further contended that the respondent-husband and his family members used to harass her physically and mentally and beaten her many times for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On 14.01.2012 the respondent and his parents have taken her signature on the blank paper and beaten her, and finally she was driven out from the conjugal home of respondent, for which she lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Belgaum, who registered the case against the respondent and his family members for dowry harassment. She is residing with her parental house and she has no means to maintain herself and her child. The respondent-husband is working as FDC in the Treasury, Bailhongal and is getting Rs. 35000/- per month besides getting Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs per annum from the landed property and he is capable to pay the maintenance.

Upon service of notice from the Family Court, the husband filed objections and admitted the relationship between himself and the petitioners and contended that the wife herself has voluntarily deserted him and she has treated respondent-husband and his family members with cruelty and she is adamant in nature. She did not heed to anyone in matrimonial home. She always used to watch the television for the whole day without doing household work and she threatened the respondent and his family members to lodge a complaint against all of them and send them to jail. Elders of the family have taken her but she did not heed to their advise. She pressurized the respondent to give his entire salary of every month, for which she used to pick up quarrel with him. She also filed false dowry harassment case against the husband and his family members. He also contended that his mother is suffering from high sugar and BP and required monthly check-up and medicine and his brother is also depending on him and he has the responsibility to take care of all of them. In such circumstances, there is total negligence on the part of the wife. His take home salary is Rs. 14,000/- only, out of which he is maintaining his mother, brother, and himself and he has to pay Rs. 4000/-. Per month and to discharge hand loans. There is no source of income except the salary and he denied other averments of the petition as false and sought for dismissal of the petition.

In order to establish her case, the petitioner/wife examined herself as P.W. 1 and got marked documents at Ex. P. 1 to P. 5. The respondent-husband examined himself as R.W. 1 and got marked documents as Ex. R. 1 and R. 2. After considering entire material on record, the Family Court by the impugned order dated 9.10.14 has granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the wife and Rs. 1000/- to the son from the date of the order.

Against the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. K. Anandkumar, who has contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance to the wife and son is exorbitant and there is no basis for the same and also contended that the Family Court failed to consider that the petitioner is working as SDC in Treasury office at Bailhongal and after deductions his take home salary is Rs. 14,702/-, out of which it is very difficult for him to maintain himself, his mother and other family members. Therefore, he sought to set aside the order passed by the Family Court.

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

It is admitted fact that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent-1 was solemnized on 22.11.2007 and out of their wedlock petitioner-2 was born. There are allegations and counter allegations against the wife and respondent. It is the specific case of the wife who is examined as P.W. 1, that her husband is working in the treasury and is getting Rs. 35,000/- per month and apart from that he is getting Rs. 8 lakhs to 10 lakhs per annum from the landed property.

In order to establish her claim, the wife has produced Ex. P. 1 to P. 5 to prove their marriage. The Family Court considering the entire material on record, has recorded a finding that admittedly the respondent is working in Treasury at Bailhongal as SDC. Ex. P. 4 Salary Certificate for the month of August 2013 discloses his gross salary as Rs. 19,124/- and after deductions his take home salary is Rs. 14,702/-. The Salary Certificate Ex. P. 4 is not disputed. The respondent/husband has contended that his mother is suffering from sugar and BP and he has the responsibility to take care of her medical expenses and he has to pay rent of Rs. 4000/- per month and to discharge hand loans. But the petitioner/wife disputed the rental agreement stating that it is created by respondent to pay lesser maintenance to petitioners 1 and 2 during pendency of the petition.

The petition is filed in the month of July 2013 and the respondent has adduced evidence on 27.6.14. He has got rental agreement dated 26.6.2014 one day before adducing evidence. He has not produced earlier rental agreement. It creates a doubt in the mind of the court regarding genuineness of Ex. R. 1. He has not produced any other documentary evidence in support of Ex. R. 1. The said rental agreement is not genuine and created with an intention to pay lesser maintenance to petitioners 1 and 2. The respondent is having financial capacity to pay maintenance. Considering the needs of petitioners and financial status of the respondent and his responsibility and taking into consideration judicial notice of escalation of groceries, commodity prices in the society from day to day, the 1st petitioner-wife is entitled to Rs. 5000/- per month and 2nd petitioner-son is entitled to Rs. 1000/- per month till he attain the age of majority from the date of order. Accordingly, the Family Court has passed the impugned order.

Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that Ex. R. 1 is the Rent Agreement and he is paying rent of Rs. 4000/- per month. But except Ex. R. 1, he has not produced any other document before this Court to show that prior to rent agreement he was in a rented house and he was paying rent. As rightly observed by the Family Court, maintenance petition is filed in the month of July 2013 and alleged rent agreement is dated 26.6.2014 and the respondent has adduced evidence on 27.6.2014. Therefore, it creates a doubt in the mind of the court regarding genuineness of Ex. R. 1 as rightly observed by the Family Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena, AIR 2014 SC 2875 : (2014) AIRSCW 4201 : (2014) 8 JT 359 : (2014) 8 SCALE 573 , while considering the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has held at para-2 as under:

"2. 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."

Considering the entire material on record and taking judicial notice of escalation of groceries, commodity prices in the society from day to day, maintenance granted by the Family Court is in accordance with law. Petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.

In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A. 1/14 for stay does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly disposed of.