Karnataka High Court
Sri N Srinidhi vs Smt Jyotishree on 28 November, 2012
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R. Kumaraswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAMY
RPFC No.68/2012
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. SRINIDHI,
S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT "SRI", 2126,
3RD MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR,
II STAGE, HAMPINAGAR,
(RPC LAYOUT),
BANGALORE-560040.
...PETITIONER.
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA
FOR GIRIDHAR & CO. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JYOTISHREE,
WIFE OF N. SRINIDHI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
2. MASTER DHRUVA NARAYANA,
S/O N. SRINIDHIN,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT. JYOTHISHREE,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.16,
10TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
2
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR,
M/S PRAMILA ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF
FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
22.02.2012 PASSED IN C.MISC. NO.735/2007 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF
CR.P.C
THIS RPFC IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act, Order dated 29.06.2012 passed in C.Misc.No.397/2009 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, dismissing the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for revision petitioner as well as learned counsel for revision respondents, this matter is heard on merits. I have perused the trial Court records.
3
3. Parties will be referred with reference to the status in the trail Court
4. The Trial Court has framed the following points for its consideration:
1) Whether petitioner No.1 proves that she has justifiable reason to reside separately from the respondent?
2) Whether the petitioner No.1 proves that inspite of having sufficient means and capacity, the respondent refused and neglected to look after and maintain the petitioners?
3) What is the quantum of maintenance the petitioners are entitled to in terms of Sec.125 of Cr.P.C?
5. The trial Court has answered the above points as under:
Point Nos.1 and 2 : In the affirmative Point No.3 : As per the final order
6. The trial Court at para-10 of its order has mentioned that on 13.05.2007 the respondent-husband picked up a fight with his wife and assaulted her and 4 snatched her thali and threw her out of the matrimonial home. Though the respondent has denied the allegation that he assaulted petitioner No.1 and drove her away from the matrimonial home, yet he has admitted in his pleading as well as in his evidence that ever since 13.05.2007, the petitioner No.1 has been residing separately along with the child. That apart, he has admitted that petitioner No.1 had initiated criminal case against him under Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and he has suffered an order of conviction and sentenced to imprisonment for six months. Under the said circumstance, the contention taken up by the petitioner No.1 that she has justifiable reason to stay away from the respondent deserves to be accepted. The respondent could not file any petition seeking visitation rights on account of the bail conditions imposed by the Court.
7. The respondent-husband having not brought any material on record to establish the independent source 5 of income or means and capacity of the petitioner No.1 to maintain herself and the child, the trial Court held that the respondent is liable to maintain the petitioners as per Sec 125 of Cr.P.C.
9. The respondent has furnished the details of his assets and his income for the relevant period as under:
Sl. Property Property Income per Income No. Description Valued annum Per at month 1 Poultry Farm Rs.8 1,80,000/- 15,000-00 Lakhs 2 7 acres 20 guntas of Rs.1.44 2,50,000/- 21,000-00 land at Srinivaspua, crores Doddaballapura Taluk 3 1 acre of Rs.20 50,000/- 4,000-00 agricultural lakhs land at Srinivaspura 4 1 acre of land at Rs.5 35,000/- 3,000-00 Kanakapura Taluk lakhs 5 Fixed deposits and Rs.18 1,20,000/- 10,000-00 MIS lakhs 6 Salary Income - - 20,000-00 Total 73,000-00 Taking into consideration of all assets and liabilities of the respondent, the trial Court has directed 6 the respondent-husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to the petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.
8,000/- to the petitioner No.2-child.
10. The object of Section 125 to 128 of the Code constitute one family. These have been grouped together in Chapter IX of the Code under the caption, 'ORDER FOR MAINTENANCE OF WIVES, CHILDREN AND PARENTS'. These provisions are intended to fulfill a social purpose. Their object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligations, which he owes to the society in respect of his wife, children and parents. By providing a simple and speedy but limited relief, these provisions seek to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left beggared and destitute on the scrapheap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. The inability of the wife, child and father or mother to maintain themselves could lead to social problems and therefore, it became the concern of the State not to 7 allow such inability to grow into social problems of great magnitude. Unless the consequences of such inability were checked by providing appropriate measures, large scale of vagrancy to could be the probable off-shoot therefrom. Therefore, the Parliament in its desire to find a solution to this problem evolved a summary procedure which has found expression in Chapter IX.
11. In the background mentioned above, I have to examine whether the maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- awarded to the petitioner No.1 i.e. wife is reasonable or not? As stated earlier, the respondent has to perform his moral obligations towards his wife and children. Therefore, a simple remedy has been provided under the Cr.P.C. If sufficient amount for maintenance is required then the wife and children has to move before the Civil Court claiming maintenance under Section 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
8
12. In the instant case, the learned counsel for revision respondents has fairly conceded to reduce the maintenance amount awarded to the petitioner No.1- wife i.e. from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. In so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, he is aged about 14 years, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded in so far as the son is concerned.
13. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) This RPFC is partly allowed.
2) Maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000/- awarded to the petitioner No.1-Jyothishree (wife) is reduced to Rs.8,000/-.
3) In the event, order pertaining that the respondent-husband drives the petitioners to initiate further legal proceedings, the respondent shall pay an addition of 10% of the maintenance amount every month by way of costs.9
4) Rest of the judgment is accepted.
Learned counsel for revision respondents is permitted to file power within four weeks.
SD/-
JUDGE JTR