Karnataka High Court
Sri Girish vs Smt Manjula on 23 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
R.P.F.C. NO.125 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. GIRISH
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT 1ST CROSS, SHEET HOUSE,
ADJACENT TO UDBAVA GANESH A TEMPLE,
UDAYAGIRI EXTENSION,
HASSAN - 573201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MANJULA
W/O GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
2. DEEPIKA
D/O GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
R/AT MAYASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
01.04.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MIS.NO. 38/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT HASSAN, PARTLY
ALLOWED THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF
CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.
2
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by I Addl. Family Court, Hassan (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in Crl. Misc. 38/2017 by which, the Trial Court directed payment of maintenance of a sum of `2,000/- per month to each of the respondents herein.
2. A petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by respondents claiming maintenance of `20,000/- per month from the petitioner herein. It was contended that a sum of `1,00,000/- and 100 grams gold ornaments was given as dowry at the time of marriage. It is claimed that after the marriage, they lived peacefully for a year in the matrimonial home at Hunasinakere. However, since the petitioner contracted an illicit relationship with another woman and when he was questioned, he started treating the respondent No.1 cruelly. It is alleged that he demanded an additional dowry of `2,00,000/-. The 3 respondent No.1 alleged that on a certain day, the petitioner quarreled with the respondent No.1 and attempted to douse her in kerosene and set her ablaze. She was thrown out of the house and from the last 10-11 years she was living at parents house at Mayasandra village where she was eking out her livelihood doing odd jobs and was educating her daughter. The respondent No.1 alleged that the petitioner did not care for her and their daughter and failed to maintain them. She alleged that the petitioner was employed in a Company at Industrial Area, Hassan and he was earning `40,000/- every month. Therefore, she claimed that the petitioner is liable to maintain the respondents and hence filed the petition claiming maintenace of `20,000/- per month.
3. The petitioner contested the petition and claimed that the respondent No.1 lived peacefully with the petitioner till the daughter was born. He alleged that respondent No.1 was pestering him to buy ornaments. He alleged that the respondent No.1 was not willing to stay at the Slum Board Building, which was granted to his mother 4 at Hassan and wanted to set up a new house elsewhere in Hassan. When the petitioner did not accept this, the respondent No.1 took away the daughter to her parents house in Mayasandra village. It is alleged that during May 2017 about 100-150 people from Dalit Sangh had thrown out the petitioner from the Slum Board House and that the respondent No.1 is in occupation of the said house. He claimed that he was employed as a Security Guard and that he was residing in Asbestos Sheet House provided by his owner. He claimed that he was not in a position to maintain himself and therefore, he was not liable to pay any maintenance.
4. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court set down the case for trial.
5. The respondent No.1 was examined as PW1 and she marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-8 and she also examined another witness as PW2. The petitioner did not lead any evidence.
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the respondent No.1 had sufficient 5 reason to stay away from the petitioner and having regard to the fact that the respondent No.1 was not capable of maintaining herself and also in view of the fact that respondent No.2 was a school going child, ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of `2,000/- to each of the respondents.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present Revision Petition is filed.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that petitioner was not liable to pay any maintenance since his wife had withdrawn voluntarily from his company. He also stated that the Trial Court did not grant any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to adduce evidence.
9. Having regard to the fact that the daughter of the parties is now aged about 18 years and having regard to the fact that the respondent No.1 had no source of income, this Court does not feel it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. A sum of `2,000/- awarded to each of the petitioners every month is 6 a flea bite maintenance awarded by the Trial Court. Having regard to the cost of living and the educational expenses, the amount of maintenance awarded is neither excessive nor exorbitant. The petitioner is an able bodied man who is bound to maintain his wife and daughter and he cannot claim that the amount of maintenance ordered by the Trial Court is excessive or that he cannot pay the same. In view of the above, this Revision Petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm