Shaik Taher vs Nasareen Begum others

B. Manohar, J. - The petitioner has filed this revision petition, challenging the order dated 16.10.2014 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 203/2012 by the District Judge, Family Court, Gulbarga granting maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. to respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein filed a criminal Misc. petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking for maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 to 6 contending that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 herein are legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 14.04.1996 at Santraswadi, Gulbarga. The 1st respondent and petitioner herein lead happy married life for 8-9 years. The five children were bom out of their wedlock. Thereafter, the petitioner/husband addicted to bad vices. The petitioner is working in Mahanagar Palika, Latur. Further, she and her children were thrown out of the marital house. She could not maintain herself and her five children. Hence, she filed a petition under Section 125(1) of Cr.PC. seeking for maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to maintain herself and Rs. 2,000/- each to respondents No. 2 to 6.

In pursuance of the notice issued by the Family Court, the petitioner herein had entered appearance in the said petition and filed the objections to the maintenance petition and also denied the allegations made in the petition However, he admitted the marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 1 and that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are children of petitioner.

The respondent No. 1 in order to prove her case examined herself to show that the husband is working in Mahanagar Palika, Latur and getting salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Though, sufficient time has been given to petitioner to lead evidence, he has not led any evidence. The Family Court after examining the matter in detail and considering the capacity of petitioner to pay the maintenance awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month each to respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 from the date of claim petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband has filed this revision petition.

Sri B. Noor Ilyas, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Family Court is exorbitant. Though he was employee of Mahanagar Palika, Latur, after deduction of the salary he is getting only Rs. 8,000/- per month. He is not in a position to pay the maintenance amount to the wife and his five children. The first respondent is earning Rs. 2,000/- per month by doing tailoring work. Hence, respondent No. 1 is not entitled for compensation and the compensation awarded to the respondents herein is exorbitant and sought for setting aside the order passed by the Family Court. Though the respondents are served with notice remained unrepresented.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the Advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in this revision petition and other relevant records.

The record clearly discloses that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are legally wedded husband and wife. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the children. Their marriage was solemnized on 14.04.1996. The specific allegation of respondent No. 1 is that the husband is addicted to bad vices like drinking alcohol etc. He is spending money for his bad habits. In view of that, she along with five children were thrown out from the marital house and hence she sought for maintenance. He has not disputed that he was an employee of Mahanagar Palika, Latur and getting salary of more than Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children. Accordingly, taking into consideration the capacity of the petitioner to pay the maintenance, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 to 8. The maintenance awarded by the Family Court is in accordance with law and bear minimum. It is the obligation on the part of the husband to maintain his wife and children. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No. 1/2015 filed for condonation of delay and I.A. No. 2/2015 filed for stay both are also dismissed.