Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramesh S/O Hanumanthappa ... vs Smt. Chethana W/O Ramesh ... on 12 January, 2021
Author: Ravi.V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
RPFC No.100118/2017
BETWEEN
SRI. RAMESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA SHIVANAKKANAVAR
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI,
NOW R/AT: NO.6,
4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
SRINIVASA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560085.
...PETITIONER
(By SRI.P.K.SANNINGAMMANAVAR, ADV.)
AND
1. SMT. CHETHANA W/O RAMESH SHIVANAKKANAVAR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: C/O H. A. BASAVANTHAPPA
SRI.RANGANATH NILAYA,
C.B. NAGAR, DHARWAD.
2. KRUTHIKA D/O RAMESH SHIVANAKKANAVAR
2
AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
MINOR, REP/BY MOTHER RESP.NO.1,
SMT.CHETHANA
W/O RAMESHH SHIVANAKKANAVAR,
R/AT: C/O H. A. BASAVANTHAPPA
SRI.RANGANATH NILAYA,
C.B. NAGAR, DHARWAD.
....RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
30.12.2016 IN CRL.MISC.NO.74/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo for retirement dated 07.01.2021. It is not accompanied by acknowledgment of petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents submits that it is the third counsel who is seeking retirement on behalf of the petitioner and that the same is only with an intention to dilate above proceedings. In view of above, memo for retirement is rejected.
3
2. Heard the learned counsels on the main petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order in this petition is an ex-parte order and the petitioner did not avail an opportunity before trial Court and therefore seeks for interference with the order.
4. He further submits that respondent No.1 has completed her M.A., B.Ed. and working as a teacher and therefore it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself. Without considering the same, impugned order is passed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that summons was duly served on the petitioner despite the same he did not participate, and impugned order was passed by considering evidence placed on record. He further submitted that petitioner is working as software engineer and earning monthly income of more than Rs.80,000/- in addition to having landed properties as indicated by contents of Exs.P3 and P4. Learned counsel also denies that respondent No.1 is working and is having any source of income. He submits that she is unable to maintain herself. Even respondent No.2 was attending school and requires 4 maintenance. Therefore, the order for payment of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.2 is fully justified and no grounds for interference are made out.
6. From perusal of impugned order, it is noted therein that marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with the petitioner on 09.06.2010 at Hirekerur in accordance with Hindu customs. Thereafter, she resided with petitioner at matrimonial home and respondent No.2 was born on 27.12.2011. During the time respondent No.1 was with the petitioner, she was ill-treated by him and his family members. Despite advice by elders, petitioner did not change his attitude. She stated that there was even an attempt to administer poison to her and she had filed private complaint No.218/2012 against the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.1 and her child began residing at her maternal home. But petitioner failed to provide any maintenance to them despite having sufficient means as he was working as software engineer with a monthly salary of more than Rs.80,000/- and having a RCC house constructed in CTS No.1558/B in Hirekerur and also owning 2 acres 5 31 guntas of agricultural land in Sy.No.62/2. Apart from above petitioner also owns a site in Ranebennur. It is stated that from the above sources, petitioner was having annual income of more than Rs.5,00,000/-. Despite the same, he has failed and neglected to maintain respondent No.1-wife and respondent No.2-child. In support of her application, respondent No.1 produced copies of wedding invitation as Ex.P1, Aadhar card as Ex.P2, CTS of house site extract as Ex.P3, RTC of agricultural land as Ex.P4 and their wedding photograph as Ex.P5. After considering the same, family Court held that respondent No.1 is entitled for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and respondent No.2 is entitled for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month.
7. In a petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan reported in 1999 (6) SCC 326 has held that, a statement by wife that she was unable to maintain herself would be sufficient and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise. It was further held that, burden lies on husband to prove that he has no sufficient 6 means to discharge his obligation or he did not neglect or refuse to maintain her.
8. In the case on hand petitioner despite service of notice has not appeared and contested the proceedings. Even in the petition before this Court, there is no denial of his employment as software engineer with salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. His only contention is that respondent No.1 is also working and he lost his jot. His employment proves his earning capacity and status. But there are no records to substantiate the same. Apart from same, it is available to the petitioner to establish these facts by filing application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C, 1973.
9. Under these circumstances, order for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGK