Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Both these petitions are listed for Admission. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.

2. RPFC No.189/2016 is filed by the husband while RPFC No.101/2016 is filed by the wife, both assailing judgment dated 22-12-2015 passed in C.Misc.No.24/2015 by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumkuru.

3. The wife filed the petition under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC) against the husband seeking maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month. According to her, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09-03-2014 at Mandya as per Hindu customs and rituals; that the husband and his parents had demanded dowry. That after marriage, the wife lived with the husband at his residence at Kyathanahalli for a period of two and half months only. Thereafter, the husband went to Mumbai. Inspite of repeated requests he did not take his wife to Mumbai. He thereafter visited his native place only twice. That on the instigation of his mother, the husband ill-treated his wife and harassed her. The wife has also contended that her husband's family ill-treated her and threw her out of the house and she has taken shelter in her parents house. That she was working as Head of Department in Physics in Bairanayakanahalli College, but on the direction of her husband, she resigned her job. Several panchayaths were convened for reunion of the petitioner and the respondent but it went in vain. The husband issued legal notice to his wife on 12-11-2014, but the same was not served on her. That on 07-01-2015 he issued another notice to her for restitution of conjugal rights. But the wife got registered a criminal case in Cr.No.22/2015 against her husband and family members for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. That the husband has also filed a petition before the Civil Judge, Pandavapura, for restitution of conjugal rights. Contending that the husband neglected to maintain her, the wife filed the petition seeking maintenance by averring that her husband is working as Assistant Manager in TCS Company and earning salary of rupees one lakh per month.

7. Being aggrieved by that order, the husband has preferred RPFC No.189/2016 and, seeking enhancement in maintenance the wife has preferred RPFC No.101/2016.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.

9. It is noted that the parties have been involved in other legal proceedings apart from the proceeding filed by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is also not in dispute that the husband is working at Mumbai and wife is at Tumkuru with her parents. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner/husband is that notice of the proceeding instituted by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., was not served on him. He was erroneously placed exparte. In the circumstances, he was unable to file statement of objections to the petition nor contest the petition and that the principles of natural justice have been violated in the instant case. He therefore, submits that the impugned order may be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that the quantum of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of petition till life time of the wife is also exorbitant and incorrect.

On that day or any other date which is stipulated by the Trial Court, the petitioner/husband shall file his statement of objections to the petition filed by the wife.

The Trial Court shall dispose of the petition in accordance with law, after giving both parties an opportunity to let in evidence/further evidence in the event they desire to do so by redetermining the award of maintenance sought by the wife.

In the result, RPFC No.189/2016 is allowed and RPFC No.101/2016 is dismissed.