Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 716 (KAR)

Uma P. v. R. Raghavendra

2014-08-05

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2014
ORDER Aravind Kumar, J. 1. By the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties namely, Sriyuths Prasanna Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and V. Laxminarayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent, this petition is taken up for final disposal. Facts in brief which has lead to filing of this petition are as under: First petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage came to be solemnized on 07.05.2006 at Mahaveera Bhavan, Kalyana Mandhira, Davanagere, as per the customs and rites prevailing in their community. Out of the said wedlock, second petitioner was born. According to first petitioner when she became pregnant and had gone to her parental house at Davanagere for delivery and after delivery respondent or his parents did not turn-up to see the first petitioner and the newly born child. As such, a panchayat is said to have been held by elders and well wishers of the family and respondent is said to have agreed to take the petitioners to his parents house at Bhadravathi. After staying at Bhadravathi for about three months first petitioner had left the matrimonial house on the ground that she was tortured by her in-laws and a criminal complaint was lodged against them by her and thereafter matter was compromised and respondent agreed to take back the petitioners to his residence at Bangalore. It was alleged by first petitioner before the trial court that respondent and his parents did not mend their behavior and again started abusing her after she returned back and she also alleged that they were assaulting her. Hence, she contended that she went back to her parents house in March' 2012 along with her son-second petitioner. On account of she being unable to maintain herself and her child and respondent being a Government servant namely, working as a Deputy Manager in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and drawing a salary of Rs. 65,000/-, she sought for maintenance from respondent. 2. On service of notice, respondent appeared before trial Court and filed his statement of objections and denied the averments except to the extent expressly admitted in the statement of objections. It was contended by him that he is a Mechanical Engineer and was employed at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. He admitted his marriage with first petitioner and birth of second petitioner out of wedlock with first petitioner. It was contended by him that he is a Mechanical Engineer and was employed at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. He admitted his marriage with first petitioner and birth of second petitioner out of wedlock with first petitioner. It was contended by him that there were certain trivial bitterness between the two families for performing 'Srimantha' ceremony and first petitioner was exhibiting in-difference towards her in-laws though they were generous and affectionate towards her and she was very lazy and she used to dump cooked food in the refrigerator and was serving the same on the next day and she had failed to act as a dutiful wife and discharge her marital obligations. It was contended that it is the first petitioner who had withdrawn herself from the company of respondent without any justifiable cause and contended that he has been always extending financial benefit towards education of second petitioner. It was further contended that on account of voluntary withdrawal of first petitioner from the company of respondent, question of payment of maintenance does not arise and as such he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. As already pointed, Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance for second petitioner. Rejection of first petitioner's claim by the Family Court is on the ground that she herself had withdrawn from the company of respondent without any justifiable ground. It is an undisputed fact that first petitioner has lodged a complaint against respondent and his parents in C.C. No. 2063/2012 (Crime No. 8/2012) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and same is being adjudicated by the jurisdictional court. 4. Entering into discussion with regard to the rival contentions raised in that regard and as to whether first petitioner withdrawing from the company of respondent was justified or not, is likely to prejudice the petitioners as well as respondent in the pending criminal proceedings. Hence, this Court would desist from expressing any opinion on the said issue. 5. There being no dispute with regard to relationship of the parties namely, first petitioner and respondent being husband and wife and also the fact that respondent is working as Deputy Manager (Planning) at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and drawing a salary of Rs. Hence, this Court would desist from expressing any opinion on the said issue. 5. There being no dispute with regard to relationship of the parties namely, first petitioner and respondent being husband and wife and also the fact that respondent is working as Deputy Manager (Planning) at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and drawing a salary of Rs. 75,000/- per month as admitted by him in his cross-examination dated 01.07.2014 and respondent has no means to maintain herself and at present she is residing at her husband's house. I am of the considered view that Family Court was not justified in rejecting the claim of first petitioner in toto on the ground that first petitioner had withdrawn from the company of respondent voluntarily, for which there is lack of evidence and evidence tendered before the Family Court would not suffice to arrive at such a conclusion. When first petitioner had alleged that she was forced to withdraw from the company of respondent on account of assault, it cannot be gainsaid that her withdrawal was not justified. At the cost of petition, no opinion is expressed in this regard since it is likely to prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending proceedings. 6. Be that as it may. First petitioner is a house wife and she is not working elsewhere and as such she would require financial assistance to maintain herself. The fact that respondent is gainfully employed and petitioner being his wife, he is required to take care of her needs during the subsistence of marriage and as such, I am of the considered view that if a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- is ordered, it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, it is hereby awarded. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed in part. ii. Order passed by the Family Court, Davanagere, in Cri.Misc.208/2012 dated 04.09.2013, is hereby set aside to the extent of rejecting the claim of first petitioner and no substitution to thereof, petition filed by first petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is allowed in part and a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. is ordered to be paid from the date of petition by respondent to first petitioner and he shall continue to pay the same until further orders to the contrary. iii. In view of the relationship between the parties, costs made easy.