Vijayamahantesh vs S. Sunitha

K.N. Phaneendra, J—Heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the judgment of trial Court.

The petitioner-husband is before this Court, calling in question the judgment passed in Crl. Misc. 238/2014 dated 09.06.2015, awarding an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the wife-respondent herein.

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends before this Court that the petitioner has not at all left the respondent and the respondent herself has reluctant to live with the petitioner. She left the conjugal company of the petitioner without any reason. Therefore, she forfeited the right of maintenance and as such, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Secondly the learned counsel contended that, the trial Court has committed serious error in awarding Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance without looking into the material on record. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced Xerox copies of the income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. He further contends that, the annual income of the petitioner is less than Rs. 85,000/-. Therefore, he is not in a position to pay the said amount. Therefore, the trial Court without considering all these materials has wrongly concluded that the respondent is entitled for maintenance as awarded to her.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contends that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent stained because of the ill-treatment and harassment by the petitioner herein. Therefore, having treated with intolerable cruelty, the respondent has in fact filed a petition in Crl.Misc.75/2010. He further submits that, after due investigation the police have also filed charge sheet against the petitioner and his family members on the ground that there are sufficient prima facie materials with regard to the ill-treatment given by the petitioner to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent has sufficient reasons to live away from the petitioner and she is entitled for maintenance. Secondly, it is contended that, the petitioner himself has admitted in his evidence with regard to his income that he is having income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum, since 2006 and he is owning a house worth Rs. 20,00,000/-. In spite of giving notices to the petitioner to furnish all his bank accounts and other material documents he has not produced anything to show that what exactly his income was. Therefore, the trial Court came to a definite conclusion about the quantum of the amount that could be awarded in favour of the respondent. Therefore, considering status of the parties and also materials produced by the respondent with regard to the income of the petitioner, the Court has rightly passed the order, which does not call for any interference.

I have also gone through the judgment of the trial Court. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and also that they have separated themselves and living separately. It is also an admitted fact that, after the separation, the petitioner has not made any arrangements for the maintenance of his wife though she has been living with her parents. It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent has filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and his family members in Crl. Misc. No. 75/2010 and later it was culminated into charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 498 of IPC.

Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner made attempts to canvas before the Court that the respondent herself has left the conjugal company of the petitioner, the circumstances show that there must be some dispute between the parties, which made her to leave the conjugal company which resulted in filing of a criminal complaint against the petitioner. There is no material on record to show that the said criminal complaint has been quashed or no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and his family members which clearly show that the respondent has got reason to live away from the petitioner.

Now coming to quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Court, the trial Court has observed at Para No. 10 of its order that the petitioner has admitted his income at Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum, since 2006 and he has a house worth Rs. 20,00,000/- and also observed that in spite of giving notices, the petitioner has not furnished his bank account extracts stating that he has deposited the amounts of his customers in his bank accounts. But he did not produce any documents to show that he has received any amount from his customers and kept the same in his personal bank account, the trial Court would have considered those documents if produced before the Court. The petitioner made the Court not to look into the material available against him. Therefore an adverse inference is rightly drawn by the trial Court that if those documents were produced before the trial Court, it would have gone against the petitioner and therefore, he did not produce those documents. Further added to that the petitioner is an income tax payee since 2006, that means his annual income must be more than Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum because of the exemption of the income tax is upto Rs. 2,50,000/- per annum. Therefore, I do not find any strong reason to differ from the said observations made by the trial Court. Though, the learned counsel now has made attempt to produce Xerox copies of those documents before this Court, he has not explained as to why he did not produce them before the trial Court in spite of giving notices to him. He has ventured upon to produce xerox copies of some documents before the Court. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that his monthly income is more than Rs. 50,000/- and considering the status of the parties the respondent is entitled for Rs. 15,000/- per month. There is absolutely no error committed by the trial Court to interfere with.

Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold before admission itself and accordingly, it is dismissed.