Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sharanamma W/O Shashidhar vs Sri Shashidhar S/O Veerasangappa on 21 March, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
RPFC.NO.200064/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT.SHARANAMMA W/O. SHASHIDHAR
AGE: 27, OCC: NIL, R/O. H.NO.6-1-76
THIMMAPUR PET, RAICHUR - 584101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.ANITA.M.REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. SHASHIDHAR S/O. VEERASANGAPPA
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. & BUSINESS,
R/O. ALKHAVATTIGI VILLAGE,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
... RESPONDENT
(SERVICE OF NOTICE IN R/O.
RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O. DATED 23.11.2017)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION
AND MODIFY ENHANCE THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT ON
ORDER DATED ON 28.02.2017, IN CRL.MISC.NO.227/2016
BY LEARNED JUDGE FAMILY COURT, AT RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The unfortunate wife filed the present revision petition for enhancement against the order dated 28.02.2017 made in Crl.Misc.No.227/2016 awarding only maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of the petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner/wife that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 13.03.2013 at Lakkamma Temple Lingasugur Raichur. The mother of the petitioner has not only given Rs.40,000/- as dowry and gave wrist watch, two tola gold neck chain and costly clothing to the respondent but also given house hold utensils, bed and cot. They have led happy married life for the period of one year. Marriage was consummated. Thereafter, respondent changed his attitude and addicted to bad habits of consuming drinks and liquors, womanizing. He used to spend money for bad habits 3 and not caring the petitioner. He used to come home late hours in intoxicate conditions and behaving rudely and beating and assaulting and using filthy languages and abusing her. He was sending the petitioner to her parents house asking her to demand a site for him from her parents. Whenever she returns without his demands, he was assaulting her and beating her and making the petitioner to starve. Petitioner tolerated the same with fond hope that he will reform in future. Instead of reforming himself he has extended the acts and again threatened the petitioner. One day the respondent driven out her from the house of respondent in the month of February 2015. Since, then she is residing in her mother's house at Raichur under the mercy of her mother. So many Panchayaths were held. The respondent postponed giving maintenance on some or other reasons. Finally on 16.02.2016 he has refused to provide the maintenance. The petitioner needs Rs.15,000/- per month for her food cloth medicines 4 etc., Respondent is having income of Rs.50,000/- per month from agriculture and sufficient means to pay maintenance to petitioner. Therefore, she has filed petition for maintenance.
3. The respondent/husband in response to the notice appeared before the Family Court and filed objections and admitted the relationship with the petitioner as wife and denied other averments with regard to dowry. He further contended that he has no source of income. He has further contended that he has got old aged parents, brothers and sisters. He is the only bread earner and not possessing any agricultral properties. Petitioner herself left the company of respondent and living in her parents house since two years. The maintenance claimed is too high. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Based on the pleadings, the Family Court framed the following points:
5
1. Whether petitioner has made out ground for granting maintenance as prayed?
2. What Order?
5. In order to establish the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and no documents were marked. The respondent examined himself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 and 2.
6. The Family Court considering the entire material on record by the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of the petition till her life time. Hence, the present revision petition is filed for enhancement.
7. The notice issued to respondent returned with postal cover with endorsement as 'refused. Hence, notice in respect of respondent is held sufficient by order dated 23.11.2017.
6
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. Smt.Anita.M.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- is meager, insufficient and contrary to the material on record. She would further contended that it is case of the petitioner before the Family Court that husband having sufficient means and getting Rs.50,000/- per month from agriculture. He is also having 250 sheeps and same is not considered by the Family Court. She would further contended that respondent is hale healthy to maintain the wife as contemplated under the provisions of 125 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, she sought for allow the petition by modifying the order passed by the Family Court. 7
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material on record carefully.
11. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as husband and wife. It is the specific of the petitioner/wife that the respondent/husband driven her out from the house and neglected to maintain her inspite of having sufficient means. Therefore, she contended that the husband is getting income of Rs.50,000/- per month, owns 10 acres of land and 250 sheeps. The husband who examined as RW.1 stated that he has no income and the property mentioned by the petitioner/wife is a joint family property. The petitioner who examined as PW.1 stated on oath that her husband having 10 acres of land, 250 sheeps and getting income of Rs.50,000/- per month from agriculture. Though, the same has been denied by the respondent but no documents have been produced either by the petitioner or by the respondent. 8
12. Considering the material on record, the Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife form the date of petition till her lifetime. As could be seen from the cause title of the order passed by the Family Court, Raichur, the petitioner is aged about 26 years and the respondent is aged about 31 years as on the date of filing of the petition for maintenance. Both husband and wife are residing at Raichur. It is also not in dispute that the husband is ably bodied person and is bound to maintain his wife as contemplated under Section 125 (1)
(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the wife has no means to lead her day to day life.
13. The fact remains that the relationship between the parties are admitted and marriage is admitted. Therefore, it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife. The impugned order passed by the Family Court on 28.02.2017 awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner is insufficient to 9 lead her day to day life. In these hard days, the wife has to live with the status of her husband. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is meager and requires for enhancement.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 at paragraph No.3 held as under:-
"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 10 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 statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a begger. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under 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."11
15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the wife is entitled for further enhancement of Rs.1,000/- per month in addition to the maintenance awarded by the Family Court at Rs.2,000/- per month i.e., totally Rs.3,000/- per month. The husband is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of petition till her lifetime.
16. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the petitioner/wife is allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the Family Court, Raichur in Crl.Misc.No.227/2016 dated 28.02.2017 awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month is modified holding that the petitioner/wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month against the respondent/husband from the date of petition till her lifetime.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ/Srt