Karnataka High Court
Smt.K.Indira Devi W/O K.Durga Reddy vs K.Durga Reddy S/O K.Thipanna on 13 March, 2020
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNAT AKA
DHARWAD B ENCH
DAT ED THIS THE 13 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2020
B EFORE
THE HON'B LE MR. JU ST ICE E.S. INDIRESH
RPFC NO.100034/ 2019
C/w
RPFC No.100057/2018
RPFC NO.10 0034/ 2019
B ETWEEN:
MR. K.DURGA REDDY
S/O; K.T HIP PANNA
AGE; 47 YEARS, OCC: FDA IN
PWD OFF ICE,
R/O: H.NO.86,W.NO.22, REDDY STREET,
NEAR AMB A B HAVANI T EMPLE,
MAHANANDI KOTTAM,
B ALLARI-583101.
.....PETIT IONER
(B Y SRI. S.GODE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT . K.INDIRA DEVI
W/O: K.DURGA REDDY
D/O: SMT. Y .VIMALAMMA
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: B U VANAGIRI COLONY,
KU RAHATTI, B ALLARI- 583101.
2. K.CHANDRASEKAR REDDY
S/O: K.DU RGA REDDY
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STU DENT,
R/O: B U VANAGIRI COLONY,
KU RATTI, BALLARI-58 3101.
...RESPONDENTS
(B Y SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT , ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
2
THIS PET IT ION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
19( 4) OF T HE FA MILY COURT ACT, 1984, A GAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DAT ED 31.03. 2018, IN
CRL.MISC.NO.302/ 2016, ON THE FILE OF THE
PR INCIPA L JU DGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLAR I, PARTLY
ALLOW ING TH E PET IT ION F IL ED U NDER SECTION
125 OF CR.P.C.
RPFC NO.10 0057/ 2018
B ETWEEN:
1. SMT . K.INDIRA DEVI
W/O: K.DURGA REDDY
D/O: Y.VIMALAMMA
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: B U VANAGIRI COLONY,
KU RATTI, BALLARI-58 3101.
2. CHANDRASEKAR REDDY
S/O: K.DU RGA REDDY
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STU DENT,
R/O: B U VANAGIRI COLONY,
KU RATTI, BALLARI-58 3101.
.....PETIT IONERS
(B Y SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT , ADVOCATE AND
SRI VINAY.S.KOU JALAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
K.DURGA REDDY
S/O; K.T HIP PANNA
AGE; 47 YEARS, OCC: FDA IN
PWD OFF ICE, B ALLARI
R/O: H.NO.86,W.NO.22 REDDY STREET,
NEAR AMB A B HAVANI T EMPLE,
MAHANANDI KOTTAM,
B ALLARI-583101.
OFFICE ADDRESS: SRI K.DU RGA REDDY
S/O: K.T HIP PANNA WORKING AS FDA IN
PWD OFF ICE, SUB-DIV IS ION,
FORT B ALLARI-583 101.
...RESPONDENT
(B Y SRI. S.GODE NAGARAJ , ADV.)
3
THIS PET IT ION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
19( 4) O F THE FAMILY COU RT ACT, AGA INST THE
JU DGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.03.2018, IN
CRL.MISC.NO.302/ 2016, ON THE FILE OF THE
PR INCIPA L JU DGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLAR I, PARTLY
ALLOW ING TH E PET IT ION F IL ED U NDER SECTION
125 OF CR.P.C.
THESE PET ITONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY , THE COU RT MADE THE
FOLL OWING:
ORDER
The petition in RPFC No.100057/2018, is filed by the wife and son of the respondent herein in Criminal Misc.No.302/2016 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari and sought for enhancement of the maintenance.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the petition are referred to their status before the trial Court in Criminal Misc.No.302/2016.
3. The petitioners herein are the petitioners before the trial Court. The 4 undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 28.04.1996 at Ballari and in wedlock two children were born to them namely petitioner No.2 herein and another child K.Kushal Kumar aged about 12 years. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is working in PWD Department at Ballari. The case of the petitioner No.1 that as there was some rift in the family on account of the ill- treatment made by the respondent herein, the petitioners herein have left the matrimonial home and they are residing separately at Kurahatti village, Ballari. Since the petitioner No.1 is having no source of income to maintain herself and to take care of the children as well as she is having skin disease, she requires constant medical treatment for the same. She filed criminal 5 Misc.No.302/2016 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari and sought for maintenance from the respondent herein.
4. On receipt of the summons from the trial Court, the respondent appeared and filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner No.1 was not performing her marital obligation and she is very greed and she never care for the welfare of the children and also states that she herself left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and as such the claim made by the petitioners are liable to be rejected. In order to establish the case, the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and the petitioners have produced Exs.P1 to P23. On the other hand, the respondent was examined as RW.1 and examined another witness as RW.2. The 6 trial Court after considering the material on record and the evidence adduced by the parties, by order dated 31.03.2008 allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 from the date of petition till she re-marries. The petition filed by petitioner No.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., was dismissed however the trial Court reserved liberty to petitioner No.1 to recover the actual education expenses incurred insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein submits that petitioner No.1 is having health ailments and it is very difficult for her to maintain herself. He also submits that 7 the respondent is working at PWD Department and having handful of salary and as such in order to maintain herself, the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial Court is meager and requires to be enhanced by this Court looking into the status of the respondent.
7. Sri Gode Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently contended that in fact the petitioner No.1 herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause and apart from this, he submit that the reason for living apart by the petitioner No.1 from the company of the respondent was, for the reason that she is very greed and took up quarrel with him and left the matrimonial home without any reason at the instigation of her mother. She never care for the welfare of the children as 8 well as never performed her marital obligation and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. The scope and ambit of Section 125 Cr.P.C., is very clear that the Courts while exercising the jurisdiction under the said provision must keeping in mind the very object of the provision and to appreciate the facts and circumstances of each case keeping in mind the legislative intends and purposes. It is further stated that, it is the duty of the husband to provide shelter and maintenance to the wife and if he neglects then the wife shall recourse to legal proceedings against the husband for seeking maintenance. In the instant case, the petitioner No.1 is a house wife and having a skin disease which requires the constant medical care. It is also not in dispute that the respondent 9 herein is working in PWD Department, earning not less than Rs.40,000/- per month.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 between Bhuwan Mohan Singh V. Meena and Ors. has held that, at the time of assessing maintenance, the scope and ambit of Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. interalia, social obligation on the part of the husband to be considered. It is further observed as follows:
3. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.
That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the 10 statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.
8. At the outset, we are obliged to reiterate the principle of law how a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code has to be dealt with by the court, and what is the duty of a Family Court after establishment of such courts by the Family Courts Act, 1984. In Smt. Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Farooq, the Court opined that proceedings under Section 125 of the Code, it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.
9. A three-Judge Bench in Vimla (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.), while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that Section 125 of the Code is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.
10. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and another, while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that:
"While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 11 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."
11. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, reiterating the legal position the Court held: -
"Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat."
10. Having regard to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2014 SC 2875 between Bhuwan Mohan Singh V. Meena and Ors. and on considering the entire case papers made available by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance awarded by the trial Court is 12 just and proper, which do not call for any interference by this Court.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316 at paragraph No.6 held as;
"The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow.
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). It is meant to 13 achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v.
State of Gujarat and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 503)."
12. In order to decide the matter under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. The expression "unable to maintain herself" implied in Section 125 of Cr.P.C., would indicates that the wife is entitled for the requisite maintenance from the husband. In that view of the matter and on considering the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the award of Rs.5,000/- per 14 month by the trial Court is meager which requires to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per month since the respondent is working at PWD Department, Government of Karnataka and earning handful salary from the Government, which according to this Court is just and proper in the peculiar circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, I pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The petition in RPFC No.100057/2018 is allowed in part.
(ii) The order dated 31.03.2018 passed in Criminal Misc.No.302/2016 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari is modified and the petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of petition.
15
(iii) It is submitted that in view of the disposal of RPFC No.100057/2018 filed by the petitioners herein against the order dated 31.03.2018 on the file of the Principal Judge Family Court, Ballari, the petition in RPFC No.100034/2019 do not survive for consideration.
(iv) Accordingly, the petition in RPFC
No.100034/2019 is dismissed as
having become infructuous in terms of the judgment and decree passed in RPFC No.100057/2018.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr