Zareena Begum vs Mohammad Gouse

These two revision petitions are filed by the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband in Crl.Misc. No. 55/2011, which is disposed of by order dated 05.06.2012 on the file of the Family Court, Dharwad. The revision petition filed by the husband is in RPFC No. 337/2012 impugning the order insofar as it pertains to awarding maintenance to the wife in a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. along with cost of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. Sofar as RPFC No. 361/2013 is filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance, that is awarded to her in Crl.Misc. No. 55/2011.

The undisputed facts leading to these two petitions are as under:

"The petitioner and respondent were married according to the customs prevailing in shariyat law on 19.12.1984 in Dharwad. It is seen that after the marriage, petitioner and respondent were living together in Ranebennur in the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the petitioner wife left the company of the respondent-husband and started living in her parental house at Dharwad. While she was staying with the parents in Dharwad, she filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The said petition was filed on 10.12.2008. It is seen that the said petition was filed almost after 14 years from the date of petitioner-wife started living separately from her respondent-husband. In the said proceedings, the prayer of the wife seeking maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- p.m. was contested by the husband who was working as SDA, in Commercial Tax Department at the relevant point of time. In the proceedings before the Family Court, Dharwad, after recording the evidence of both the parties, petition came to be allowed partly awarding maintenance to the petitioner-wife in a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. along with cost of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses, which is challenged, by filing these two petitions, one by the petitioner-wife seeking enhancement and another by the respondent-husband seeking to set aside the order of maintenance that is granted."

The grounds urged in the revision petition by the petitioner-wife is that the Court below has not taken into consideration that the husband has deliberately neglected to maintain the wife and he has thrown her out from the house without any reasons and that he has taken a second wife, detrimental to the interest of the petitioner-wife, therefore, it has become impossible for her to live with her husband. Hence, she should be provided with maintenance which is not properly considered by the Court below with reference to the income of the respondent-husband and has awarded meager maintenance at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. As against this, the grounds urged in the revision petition filed by the husband is that the evidence on record would clearly disclose that the right from the date of the marriage, the petitioner-wife never adjusted herself with the respondent-husband, she did not chose to lead happy marital life with him and that petitioner-wife and her family members were continuously insisting him to shift his residence to Dharwad, where the wife is residing and in spite of best efforts made by the husband, he was not able to convince the wife to live with him. Therefore, she voluntarily left the house and gone without there being any reason. Hence, she is not entitled to any amount towards maintenance.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband, perused the evidence and pleadings of the Court below. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that, there is admission on the part of the petitioner-wife that, within 20 days from the date of the marriage, she declined to go to the matrimonial house at Ranebennur. It is seen that, she is insisted for separate house should be set up at Dharwad, when her husband was working in Ranebennur as SDA at the relevant point of time. It is also seen that the wife has left the matrimonial house on more than one occasion and on each occasion, the husband and his family members have gone to the house of the wife and brought her back to the matrimonial house. Finally, when the wife decided to desert the husband''s house, she has done it when the husband was not at home. At that time, the elder brother of the husband has ensured that this lady would not be going out of the house alone, he provided assistance of someone in the house to ensure that she reaches the house of her parents safely. In the entire evidence of the petitioner-wife, it is clearly seen that she has been non-cooperative right from the day one and there is also evidence to the effect that the family of the petitioner-wife has demanded and collected money from respondent-husband. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the evidence available on record is not properly appreciated by the Court below. It has gone on the premise that, whenever a petition is filed by the wife irrespective of its merit, the petition should be allowed and maintenance should be granted to the wife. While doing so, it has not even bothered to see that whether husband has sufficient means to pay the maintenance, which has resulted in the order impugned being passed.

At the time of hearing this revision petition, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent-husband in the Court below is already retired and he is living a retired life with the pensionery income of less than Rs. 10,000/-. When that being the case, question of enhancement of maintenance to the wife does not arise. Even otherwise, the maintenance which is awarded to her in the first place at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. is required to be looked into. On going through the same, this Court is of the opinion that, there is nothing on record, which would entitle the wife to seek maintenance for the reason that, without any valid reason she left the house of her husband and without valid reason, she denied the marital comfort and that she is staying in her parents house continuously for a period of 14 years, even without ascertaining what has happened to the husband in the matrimonial house.

It is only after 14 years of her desertion, she has filed the petition for maintenance only on the ground that he is a government employee, well settled and he is in a position to pay the maintenance to her, as if she is entitled to the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feel that the petitioner-wife who has deliberately deserted the company of her husband has no right, title to seek maintenance from her husband. In that view of the matter, petition filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance is dismissed. On the contrary, the petition filed by the husband seeking to set aside the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Dharwad in Crl. Misc. No. 55/2011 is hereby allowed and the maintenance, which is awarded to the petitioner-wife is set aside.