V.N. Muralidhar vs Manjula

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The RPFC No. 200002/2014 is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc. No. 63/2013 (husband) on the file of the District Judge, Family Court at Gulbarga, challenging the order on the ground that it is an exparte order passed by the Trial Court awarding an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance in favour of the wife. The RPFC No. 200014/2014 is filed by the petitioner in the above said Crl.Misc. No. 63/2013 (wife) for enhancement of maintenance amount ordered by the Trial Court.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent for the purpose of convenience, I will refer the ranks of the parties as per the ranks before the Trial Court.

Smt. Manjula-petitioner lodged a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against her husband Sri V.N. Muralidhar, seeking grant of maintenance on several grounds, which are in my opinion, not necessary to be discussed herein. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute and the parties are residing separately is also not in dispute. The Trial Court after registering of the said case ordered issuance of notice to the respondent-husband, but it is noted by the Trial Court that the respondent remained absent in spite of service and as such he was placed exparte. Evidence was recorded, the wife was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 and P2 were marked. After going through the oral and documentary evidence the Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, the said petition was allowed by granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner. The said order is challenged before the this Court on several grounds.

The learned counsel has attacked the order on the ground, that the petitioner was not at all entitle for maintenance because she has actually left the conjugal company of respondent and the order passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gulbarga, in awarding Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance per month is exorbitant. Contrary to the above said submissions the learned counsel appearing for the wife Sri Sudheer Kulkarni, submitted that the respondent has not at all appeared before the Court and the Trial Court has considered the salary of the husband as per Ex.P1 and in fact the Court would have ordered more compensation than the one awarded of Rs. 10,000/- depending upon the status of the parties. The Court ought to has considered that the wife has to live with the status as that of the wife of the petitioner. Therefore, she requires more amount towards maintenance as such the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- requires to be enhanced.

Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, though the respondent after service of notice did not appear before the Trial Court, and contested the proceedings by raising any of his grounds or objections. It is fundamental basic principles that the liberty should be given to both the parties and ultimately after hearing both the parties the Court has to find out the truth lying in the said case and thereafter only pass appropriate suitable orders. Merely because the respondent has not appeared before the Court he has not debarred from questioning the judgment of the Trial Court. He has explained as to how and why he could not appeared before the Court in the petition and the matter is of the year 2013. The petitioner also did not seriously contended the explanation given by the respondent regarding his inability to appear before the Trial Court.

Therefore, I am of the opinion, if the matter is remitted to the Trial Court giving opportunity to both the parties to raise their contentions and thereafter the Trial Court has to pass appropriate orders. In my opinion, it would meet the ends of justice. The Trial Court has already come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- and it has relied upon the documents Ex.P1 and held that the respondent-husband has been drawing salary of Rs. 43,762/-. The petitioner-wife has submitted that he has not only drawing the said amount but he has also having movable and immovable properties, out of that he is having more income from other sources. Therefore, she is entitled for more maintenance. These two aspects whether the husband has neglected and refused to maintain his wife, whether the wife is justified in living separately from the husband and whether the wife is entitled for the maintenance, if so what is the quantum of maintenance has to be afresh decided by the Court after providing opportunity to both the parties. Till then, in my opinion, the amount ordered by the Trial Court an amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be treated as an interim maintenance as if passed by the Trial Court, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court. What is the amount already paid merges with the amount and remaining if any that should be paid by the petitioner after final disposal of the case.

The case is posted today for payment of arrears of maintenance. The learned counsel has submitted that the husband has already sent courier sending the drafts or the cheques in respect of arrears or the maintenance. As soon the learned counsel receive the same he would make such payment in favour of the wife. However, it is made clear, that before filing his objections before the Trial Court or within 15 days from today whichever is earlier the respondent has to make the payment as ordered by this Court in favour of the wife and thereafter only he has to file his objections before the Trial Court. Therefore, 15 days time has been granted to him to make the payment as ordered by this Court and he shall regularly make payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance till the case in Crl.Misc. No. 63/2013 is finally disposed of on merits by the Trial Court. However, It is made clear that whatever observations made by this Court while disposing of these petitions in any manner should not persuade the Trial Court either to enhance the maintenance amount or to reduce the amount already granted in favour of the wife. The Trial Court has to be appreciate the materials on record independently applying its judicious mind and pass appropriate suitable orders.

With these observations both the petitions stand disposed of.