Zaheda Begum vs Raheemuddin

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court questioning the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Prl. Judge Family

Court Raichur in Criminal Misc. No. 143/2011 vide its Judgment dated: 19-10-2012.

The petitioners have filed a petition U/Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming Rs. 8,000/- per month to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- each to

petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 against the respondent. There is no dispute between the parties that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent

herein taken place on 10-01-2012 at Koppal and they were blessed with four children. The petitioner contended before the trial Court that

respondent has neglected and refused to maintain her and she has been residing separately alongwith her children and the respondent has not made

any arrangements for their maintenance. The respondent has made appearance before the trial Court contested the petition by saying that the

children petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 before the trial Court have been in his care and custody and he has got aged old parents to look after them also.

Therefore he is not in a position to pay such maintenance to her.

The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, has granted Rs. 3,000/- per month to petitioner No. 1. (petitioner herein) and rejected

the prayer so far as the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned on the ground that the respondent is having the care and custody of the said children

and he is maintaining them. The trial Court after observing that the parties have not produced sufficient material to exactly come to any conclusion

with regard to capability and capacity, source of income, earning of the respondent. Therefore, the Court considering the cost of living and the

place where they are living, considering the surrounding circumstances has awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month.

Even after re-evaluating the materials on record, it is clear that P.W. 1 in her evidence, though she has stated that respondent is an Engineer who

had been to Saudi Arabian countries and earned lot of money and has got lot of immovable properties and he is running private cars etc. But when

those factual aspects have been denied by the respondent, those facts ought to have been proved by means of at-least preponderance of

probabilities. Except P.W. 1 examining herself producing some documents which are not pertaining to the income of the respondent, in my opinion

no inference can be drawn by the Court with regard to the income of the respondent. Therefore it goes without saying that the Court has to award

the minimum requirement of a person to live in the society, hence the Court has awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month, in my opinion it cannot be said

that it is a meager amount or exorbitant amount. If at all the petitioner has any documentary materials to show the income of the respondent, then

she can definitely approach the Court at any point of time in future U/Sec. 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance. As on the date of

order of the trial Court the materials placed before the trial Court, and that no materials are placed before this Court it goes without saying that the

petitioner has not made any ground for enhancement of the maintenance. On the other hand, the surrounding circumstances that is to say that the

respondent has to maintain himself, four children, his parents etc. that also to be taken into consideration in awarding maintenance in favour of the

petitioner. Therefore looking from any angle, the order of the trial Court is not perverse or capricious, which requires interference by this Court.

Last but not least, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court has passed an order awarding maintenance from the date of

order instead of passing the order from the date of petition. As could be seen from the records, the trial Court has not given any reasons to award

the maintenance from the date of the order, so far as the maintenance matters are concerned, normally the maintenance should be awarded from

the date of petition, if not the Court has to give reasons as to why the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance from the date of petition. Therefore,

I am of the opinion that the trial Court ought to have awarded maintenance from the date of petition.

Therefore the respondent has to pay the maintenance ordered by the trial Court from the date of petition not from the date of the order of the trial

Court.

Under the above said circumstances, I proceed to pass the following.

ORDER

The petition is partly allowed.

Consequently the order passed by the trial Court in awarding maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner is hereby confirmed.

However the maintenance shall be payable by the respondent from the date of petition before the trial Court and not from the date of the order.

Accordingly the petition is disposed off.