Sharanayya vs Priyanka and Others

B. Veerappa, J.

The petitioner-husband filed this petition against the order dated 28.04.2014 made in Crl.Misc. No. 175/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Dharwad granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/-to the 1st respondent-wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent-daughter till she attains the age of majority from the date of petition. Against which, the present petition is filed.

The brief facts of the case are that;

"Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the wife and daughter filed Crl.Misc. No. 175/2012 claiming maintenance alleging that at the time of marriage, the father of the 1st respondent gave cash of Rs. 85,000/-, 44 grams of gold and household articles and furniture''s as per their desire and the marriage expenses were also borne out by the father of respondent No. 1. Further, it is alleged that the father of the 1st respondent expended lavishly for the marriage of his daughter to satisfy petitioner''s family. It is also alleged that the time of marriage, the 1st respondent was studied upto PUC and the petitioner was working as a Teacher in Government Primary school at Yadgin and after the marriage the 1st respondent went with the husband''s house at Lagaluru village to lead married life and she would under the impression that after few days of residing at Lagaluru, the petitioner may taker her to Yadagin where he was working But, after few days, the petitioner went to his job at Yadagin by leaving the 1st petitioner in the custody of his parents at Lagaluru village only. However, at the intervention of the elders, the petitioner has taken respondent No. 1 to his working place at Yadagin and wherein, 1st respondent lived with him for about 3 months facing all the harassment as the petitioner in the habit of going out without informing the 1st respondent. It is also alleged that out of their wedlock, the 2nd respondent was born on 26.05.2010 and thereafter, the petitioner started to harass the 1st respondent to bring dowry, as they cannot feed both mother and child, she pleaded her inability to give the dowry as her father already spent huge amount for marriage and he has taken voluntary retirement, for that, in-law abused her in filthy language and used to tease her in front of neighbours and relatives etc.,"

Further it is also alleged that the petitioner is working as a Teacher in Government Primary school and getting salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month and he is having two houses one at Lagaluru and another at Narasapur and he is also having agricultural irrigated land measuring 9 acres at Lagaluru and from his landed property, he is earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per year. Hence, 1st respondent has prayed for maintenance.

In response to the notice, petitioner-husband appeared and filed objections except admitting the relationship of the respondent, he denied other allegations and contended that the 1st respondent herself has left the house and she is not ready to live with him and she is quarreling on petty grounds and she is in the habit of going her parent''s house without informing the petitioner-husband and once she tried to commit suicide. However, she was survived due to in time treatment by the petitioner and also urged that the 1st respondent-wife also working in Private service and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and is having old parents and also his sisters who are yet to marry. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

Based on the pleadings, the Family Court framed the following points for its consideration:

"1. Whether the petitioner No. 1 proves that the respondent has neglected and reused to maintain the petitioners though having sufficient income?

Whether the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves?

Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance?

What order?"

The respondent-wife in order to establish her case, examined herself as PW.1 and her mother as PW.2 and marked documents as Exs. P1 toP3. The petitioner-husband examined as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs. R1 and R2.

After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court by the impugned order has granted Rs. 3,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs. 2,000/- to the 2nd respondent till she attains the age of majority from the date of petition. Against the said order, the present RPFC is filed.

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

Sri. Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that grant of maintenance by the Family Court to the 1st and 2nd respondent is without any basis. The petitioner has to look after his aged parents and his sisters who are yet to marry. These aspects of the matter has not been considered by the Family Court and also contended that the Family Court has not taking into consideration regarding the income from the lands which are not irrigated. Thereby the Family Court passed by the erroneous order and granted maintenance to the respondents etc., Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the impugned order.

Smt. Padmapriya S. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Prafulla Naik, 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 petition papers.

Admitted facts are that the petitioner has married to 1st respondent on 13.05.2009 and out of their wedlock, 2nd respondent born on 26.05.2010 and they were residing together till 2012. The Family Court recorded a specific finding that the respondent-wife has proved that the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having sufficient income. The respondent examined as Pw1 and her mother examined as PW.2 and specifically stated on oath regarding ill-treatment by the petitioner to the 1st respondent and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination except the denial. The respondent produced Ex. P1 - marriage invitation card, Ex. P2-application cum complaint given by the wife before the Protection Officer, Women and Child Welfare Department, Dharwad, Ex. P3- the Salary Certificate of the petitioner-husband for the month of 2013. The petitioner-husband examined as RW.1 and produced Exs. R1 and R2 the medical certificates of his parents but he has shown his ignorance in the cross-examination about earning of PW.1 though he pleaded in his objections which is in Kannada same is reproduced as under:

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has drawn salary of Rs. 17,791/- for the Month of September 2013 and he has admitted in the cross-examination that he is working as a Government Teacher. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has to maintain both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as his parents. The 1st respondent-wife has specifically stated on oath that she has no means to maintain herself and her daughter independently. The petitioner has not produced any material document to disbelieve the same. Considering the entire evidence both oral and documentary, the Family Court has passed the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the daughter till she attains the age of majority from the date of petition. The same is in accordance with law and no interference is called for. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.