Sunkanna vs Renukadevi and Others

B. Veerappa, J.

The petitioner, who was the respondent in Criminal Misc. Case No. 209/2013, filed the present revision petition against the order dated 05.10.2013 passed by the Family Court, Bellary, granting maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month each to the son and daughter respectively, from the date of the petition till their attaining the age of majority.

The respondents who are the petitioners before the Family Court had filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- each per month to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners from the respondent, alleging that the 1st petitioner and respondent were married and they lived happily together at Guntkal and out of their wedlock, petitioners 2 and 3 were born and they lived together till 2002 and later, the petitioner started ill-treating the 1st respondent and subjected her to all sorts of harassment and the petitioner started demanding money from the wife and their parents and was ill-treating her. About 8 years back, the petitioner sent his wife out of the house along with the children and he did not make any efforts to take back them to his house and also not provided any maintenance for their livelihood, etc. Hence, they filed the maintenance petition.

The petitioner who was the respondent before the Family Court appeared and filed objections and denied all the allegations, except admitting the relationship with respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Upon considering the pleadings, the Family Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds to award maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- each per month to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 from the respondent?

What order?"

Respondent No. 1/wife is examined as PW-1 and produced Exs. P-1 to 10. The petitioner/husband himself examined as RW-1, but no documents are produced on his behalf.

After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court, by the impugned order, has rejected the claim of the 1st respondent/wife on the ground that she has sufficient means to maintain herself and granted Rs. 2,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e., son and daughter. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision petition is filed by the husband.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondents are served and unrepresented.

Sri. Amaregouda, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that granting of Rs. 2,000/-each per month to respondent Nos. 2 and 3/daughter and son is without any basis and is on the higher side; the petitioner has no income to maintain the son and daughter. Further, petitioner is ready, at any time, to take back the respondents. As such, question of paying maintenance does not arise. Therefore, he requested this Court to allow this revision petition.

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

It is not in dispute that the marriage took place between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 26.05.1996 and they lived together till 2002 and out of their wedlock, respondent Nos. 2 and 3/daughter and son were born. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as recorded by the Family Court.

Admittedly, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are minors and they are school going children. They have no sufficient means for maintenance. So, in the absence of any such material, notional income of the respondent can be taken into consideration to assess the quantum of maintenance. He being an able-bodied person, his income has to be taken as Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- per day, which comes to Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. So, with this income, petitioner has to maintain himself as well as the respondents. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being children, are required to be maintained by the petitioner, who is their father. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner to look after their basic needs, such as education, food, clothes, medication, etc.

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. We are concerned with section 125(1)(b), which refers that, if any person, having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain, his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself. In view of the same, petitioner who is the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, is bound to maintain them, till they attain the majority by son and till the marriage of his daughter. It is the obligation on the part of the father to maintain his children and he cannot neglect on the ground that he has no means. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice, extended to protect women and children. It provides safety to a deserted women and also children.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the entire material on record, both oral evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 and also documentary evidence produced as Ex. P-1 to 10, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has got sufficient means to maintain respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are his daughter and son, and accordingly ordered Rs. 2,000/- each as their monthly maintenance from the date of petition till the date of their attaining the age of majority. The same is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court under the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.