Karnataka High Court
Praveen S/O. Ganapat Jedhe vs Sujata @ Prahali W/O. Praveen Jedhe on 18 March, 2020
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNAT AKA
DHARWAD B ENCH
DAT ED THIS THE 18 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2020
B EFORE
THE HON'B LE MR. JU ST ICE E.S. INDIRESH
RPFC NO.100088/2015
B ETWEEN:
SRI PRAVEEN S/O: GANAPAT JEDHE
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTU RAL LAB OU R,
R/O: SHET HEWAD I, TQ: LANJA,
DIST: RATNAGIR I, MAHARASHTRA.
.....PETIT IONER
(B Y SRI. SHREEVA TSA S.HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
SMT. SU JATA @ PRANALI
W/O: PRAVEEN JEDHE
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: HOU SEHOLD WORK,
R/O: H.NO.899/25, 4 T H CROSS,
FU LBAG GALLI, B ELAGAV I.
...RESPONDENT
(B Y SMT. CHET ANA S.B IRAJ, ADV.)
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 13.03.2015, IN
CRL.MISC.NO.180/ 2013, ON THE FILE OF THE
JU DGE, FAMILY COURT B ELAGAVI, PA RTLY
ALLOW ING TH E PET IT ION F IL ED U NDER SECTION
125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PET ITON COMING ON F OR HEARIN G ON
IA THIS DAY , THE COU RT MADE THE FOLLOW ING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the case is listed for hearing on IA, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final disposal.
2. This petition is filed by the respondent/husband against the order dated 13.03.2015 in Crl.Misc.No.180/2013 on the file of the Judge Family Court, Belagavi.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the petition are referred to their status before the trial Court.
4. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 28.05.2011 at Trimurti Mangal Karyalaya, Near ST Bus Stand, Lanja, Tq:
Lanja, Dist: Ratnagiri, Maharashtra as per the customs prevailed in their community. She submits that after the marriage, she led the 3 marital life with the respondent for a considerable period and thereafter since she was not able to tolerate the torture and assault meted out by her in the matrimonial home and as such she left the matrimonial home on 27.05.2012 and thereafter she is residing along with her parents. She submits that she has no means of maintain herself and she is depending on the income of her parents and as such she filed Criminal Misc.No.180/2013 on the file of the Judge Family Court, Belagavi. The respondent therein after receipt of the notice, has appeared before the trial Court and filed detailed objections contending that she is capable of maintaining herself and secondly the respondent states that she herself has left the matrimonial home and in view of the same, she is not entitled for maintenance. He further submits that the marriage is not consummated. The trial Court having 4 considered the pleadings on record has formulated the following points for determination and same is as under;
(i) Whether the petitioner proves that
the respondent having sufficient
means and also respondent has
neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- from the respondent?
(iii) What order?
5. In order to establish the case, the petitioner was examined herself as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 and P2. The respondent was examined as RW.1 and marked Ex.R1. The trial Court after considering the material on record and on appreciation of the evidence made by the parties, by order dated 13.03.2015 allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the 5 petitioner/wife. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.03.2015 passed in Crl.Misc.No.180/2013, the present revision petition is filed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and I have perused the entire case materials.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner- husband vehemently argued that she is not entitled for maintenance on three grounds;
(a) The respondent/wife has left the matrimonial home without any valid reasons.
(b) The respondent/wife is capable of earning herself and not entitled for maintenance.
(c) The marriage is not consummated. 6
8. Having reiterates the grounds for quashing the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that this aspect of the matter was not considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned order and accordingly he sought for setting aside the order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.180/2013.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner husband is having 18 acres of irrigated land and two immovable properties at Shethewadi Village, Tq; Lanja, Dist: Ratnagiri. She also invited the attention of the Court with regard to the cross examination of the petitioner husband as referred to in paragraph No.16 of the judgment and submitted that the parents of the respondent had taken seven LIC policies worth Rs.55,17,000/-. She also submits that 7 the respondent husband is Proprietor of Prabhat Agrotech and in order to establish the same, she filed memo dated 18.03.2020 before this Court stating that the respondent husband is having 18 acres of land and there are around 20,000/- Banana plants of G-9 category and accordingly she submits that the impugned order is just and proper which do not call for interference by this Court.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent, it is well settled principle of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh V. Meena and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 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 parties to be considered. It is further observed as follows:
8
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 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
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 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 10 position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat."
11. The perusal of the aforesaid judgment would clearly indicates that the scope and ambit of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is a social legislation to provide financial assistance to the destitute wives. The expression 'if any person having sufficient means' neglects or refuses to maintain would clearly indicates that it is obligation on the part of the husband to take care of the wife and children under the said provision of law. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge had taken note of the fact that the respondent has neglected the respondent wife and he is also having immovable properties as stated at paragraph No.16 of the judgment, has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner/wife is entitled for Rs.6,000/- per month from the 11 respondent is just and proper which do not call for interference by this Court.
12. The perusal of the evidence of PW.1 would clearly indicates the fact that she is not capable of maintaining herself and further, though she admits that she knows tailoring work but the fact remains that the income derived from tailoring is not sufficient and said occupation is not stable and on the other hand, this was not proved by cogent evidence by the respondent husband. It is also stated that, since the marriage with the petitioner is admitted by the respondent-husband, that it is the obligation of the respondent-husband to take care of the wife. If the respondent- husband is having grievance in respect of non-consummation of marriage, remedy is available under different statute, not under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
12
13. Having regard to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i n AIR 2014 SC 2875 between Bhuwan Mohan Singh V. Meena and Ors., and on considering the case papers made available by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance awarded by the trial Court is just and proper, which do not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the following order is passed. Hence, I pass the following;
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
The judgment and order dated 13.03.2015 passed in Crl.Misc.No.180/2013 on the file of the Judge Family Court, Belagavi, is hereby confirmed.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the petitioner herein has
deposited the maintenance amount before this Court and since the petition is disposed of, 13 the respondent wife is entitled to withdraw the amount.
The registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the respondent/wife on proper identification made by the learned counsel for the resopndent/wife.
Sd/-
JU DGE msr