Shivaji vs Sujata and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Mr. Shivaji is aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2015 passed by the Family Court at Belgaum, whereby the learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance for respondent from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 2000/- per month.

The brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner, Mr. Shivaji was married to respondent No. 1, Sujata on 07.06.2001 at Belgaum. During the wedlock two daughters, namely, Kum. Durva and Kum. Shruti were born. However, since dispute arose between the parties, the couple parted their ways. Since respondent No. 1 was unable to maintain herself, and her two daughters, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, before the Family Court at Belgaum. By order dated 22.05.2012, the learned Family Court granted maintenance of Rs. 750/- per month to the respondent No. 1, and directed that Rs. 500/- each per month, should be paid to the two daughters. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 was receiving only Rs. 1750/- per month from the petitioner.

As the years rolled by, and the prices sky-rocketed, the respondent No. 1 filed an application for enhancement of maintenance from the petitioner before the Family Court, Belgaum. By order dated 1.10.2015 the said application has been allowed in terms aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Smt. Geetha K.M., the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that the learned Family Court was unjustified in enhancing the maintenance for respondent No. 1. Firstly, she herself was earning by tailoring clothes. Hence, she was in a position to maintain herself, and her children. Secondly, since the petitioner is willing to keep his wife and two children with him, the question of having to maintain them separately would not even arise. Thirdly, it is the respondent No. 1 who is cruel towards the petitioner and yet she is taking the benefit of her own faults. Fourthly, that there is phenomenal increase in the maintenance amount to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1. Therefore, enhancement of maintenance being granted in favour of respondent No. 1 should be set aside.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

The first contention raised by the learned Counsel is unacceptable. For the said contention was equally raised before the learned Family Court. However, the learned Family Court has observed in the impugned order, that the husband did not produce any oral, or documentary evidence to prove the fact that the wife was earning Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per day by doing tailoring Therefore, there is no evidence on record to establish the fact that respondent No. 1 is able to maintain herself from her own earning.

The other contention raised by the learned Counsel that cruelty had been committed by respondent No. 1 upon the petitioner, husband, is equally unacceptable as no evidence on this point was led before the Family Court.

It is, indeed, a self-contradictory stand being taken by the petitioner to claim on the one that hand that he is willing to maintain the wife and children, and yet he is not willing to pay the maintenance as enhanced by the Court. By taking such a stand, the petitioner admits that he is in a sound financial position to maintain his wife and children. Yet, he does not wish to maintain them ostensibly on the ground that they are not willing to stay with him. Therefore, the said stand is equally unacceptable.

By order dated 25.5.2012, the Family court had granted maintenance of merely Rs. 750/- per month to respondent No. 1. Undoubtedly, the price of commodities have sky-rocketed and the respondent No. 1 would find it extremely difficult to maintain herself, with a sense of dignity and honor, on a meager maintenance amount of Rs. 750/- per month. Considering the fact that she is not only saddled with maintaining herself, but equally burdened to maintain her two daughters, an increase from maintenance of Rs. 750/- to Rs. 2,000/- is rather a reasonable enhancement.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 1.10.15. This petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.