Selvin vs Elizabeth Pramila and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—The above revision petition is filed by the Husband against the order dated 22.07.2014 made in Crl.Misc. No. 308/2013 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bellary, granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st petitioner-wife from the date of the order during her life time and Rs. 5,000/- to the 2nd petitioner-daughter from the date of the order till the date of attaining majority or till her marriage.

It is the case of the wife before the Family Court that the marriage of the petitioner-wife was performed with the respondent on 02.02.2009 at CSI Church, Tambaram, Chennai. After the marriage, they lived together at Manimangalam, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu. At the time of the marriage, the respondent received Rs. 60,000/- worth household articles and 12 savarans gold ornaments as dowry. Subsequent to the marriage, the respondent along with his mother started abusing the 1st petitioner with filthy language with the demands of further dowry. The 1st petitioner tolerated all the ill treatments given to her with a hope that the respondent may change his behaviour. The 2nd petitioner was born on 10.02.2010 and thereafter, he went to Muscat on employment and left the 1st petitioner in his parent''s house. The mother-in-law of the 1st petitioner subjected her for cruelty in the absence of the respondent and thereafter she joined her husband in Muscat, on 03.02.2011. Even when they were residing at Muscat, the respondent was ill-treating the 1st petitioner and they returned to India on 04.08.2012. The respondent and his mother continued to ill-treat the 1st petitioner even after their return from Muscat, Hence, a medication was also held in Manimangalam in the 1st week of October 2012. The respondent with an intention to have 2nd marriage continued to ill-treat the 1st petitioner by seeking her consent for the same. On 12.11.2012, about 7.30 p.m. the respondent brutally assaulted the 1st petitioner and thrown her and her daughter out of the house. A Panchayat was held and she was taken back to the house of the respondent in the last week of April 2013. The respondent once again continued to ill-treat the 1st petitioner both physically and mentally at the instigation of his mother, sister and brother and on 30.08.2013, the 1st petitioner and the respondent met with an accident, wherein the 2nd petitioner sustained injuries to her left thumb. When the 1st petitioner returned to the house, the respondent, his mother and sister abused the 1st petitioner as to why she had not died in the accident and assaulted her severely. In spite of the elders intervened settlement was not arrived at. Therefore, on 13.09.2013, the 1st petitioner filed a complaint at Women''s Police Station, Sriperumbuthur, Kanchipuram District Tamilnadu and a crime was registered in Crime No. 11/2013 and the respondent issued a legal notice. She further contended that the respondent was working as an Engineer in Dubai and Muscat for several years and earning more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. He is having both movable and immovable property and he is capable to maintain independently, the 1st petitioner now in need of Rs. 15,000/- per month and the 2nd petitioner is in need of Rs. 10,000/- per month and another amount of Rs. 5,000/-towards house rent and they are unable to maintain themselves and hence, prays to award maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month in all and litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, they filed the petition before the Family Court for maintenance and expenses.

In pursuance of the notice, the respondent filed objections. Except admitting his relationship with the petitioners he has denied of taking any dowry at the time of the marriage and also denied the alleged demands of dowry subsequent to the marriage. He also contended that after the marriage, he was looking after his wife with love and affection. The respondent has contended that the 1st petitioner was very much rude in her behaviour and denying to discharge her duties and she was always causing mental cruelty to him. She used to spend the amount of the respondent lavishly and she used to quarrel with his mother and other members of the family. He further contended that when they were living at Muscat, the 1st petitioner often quarreled with him for every petty issue and she often threatened him to commit suicide by taking more painkillers tablets etc., Hence, he sought to dismiss the petition.

In order to establish her claim, the wife-1st petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 8 and respondent was examined as RW.1 and witness as RW.2 and marked documents at Exs.R1 to 6.

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

Sri. Hemalekha K.S., learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court by granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st respondent-wife and Rs. 5,000/- to the 2nd respondent-daughter is without any proof and the 1st petitioner has left the matrimonial house voluntarily without any valid reasons and the said averments was admitted in the petition. Therefore, she is not entitled any maintenance from the petitioner-husband etc.

Per contra, Sri. M. Amaregouda, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondent No. 1 sought to justify the impugned order.

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

It is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties and out of their wedlock, the 2nd petitioner was born. There are allegations and counter allegations between the parties. The Family Court after considering the material on record has recorded a finding that at the time of Cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent has only produced his certificate of ITI but the leave application of the respondent was produced at Ex.P6. The respondent has admitted the said document, which discloses his profession, in Bhawan Engineering Company LLC at Muscat, as a Junior Engineer-CAD OPN and the fact that the respondent was working as an engineer is sufficiently proved by the 1st petitioner. Even as per the admissions by the respondent, he being a Trainer of ITI Fitter can get a job suitable to his education and can earn more than Rs. 600/- to Rs. 800/- a day and it will comes around Rs. 18 to 24 thousand per month. Merely because the 1st petitioner failed to produce any documents to show that the current occupation of the respondent after his return to India form Muscat and the respondent claims that he is an unemployed, will not evade the respondent from paying any maintenance to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the respondent is an able bodied man and a suitably trained person and is certainly capable of getting a job and can earn up to Rs. 24,000/- per month as observed above.

While considering the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 held 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 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 form the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."

Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Family Court has rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner from the date of the order during her lifetime and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner from the date of the order till the date of attaining majority or till her marriage and the same is in accordance with law.

It is worthwhile to observe that in spite of the order passed by this Court directing the petitioner-husband to pay arrears of maintenance of Rs. 1,80,000/-, The petitioner has not paid the amount till today and in spite of sufficient time granted. It shows the conduct on the part of the petitioner. It is always open for the respondent wife to implement the impugned order passed by the Family Court by invoking execution proceedings and attach the immovable properties of the petitioner in accordance with law.