Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 634 (KAR)

Sanjay Chandusa Gongale v. Anjali @ Vidhya

2015-06-17

B.VEERAPPA

body2015
ORDER The petitioner/husband filed the above revision petition against the order dated 10.6.2004 made in Criminal Misc. 223/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Belgaum granting maintenance of Rs.2,500/to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.1,000/ to the 2nd respondent/daughter aged about 5 ½ years as on today. 2. It is the case of the respondents that 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and out of their wedlock 2nd respondent/daughter was born. It is alleged in the petition filed before the Family Court by the respondents that few months after the child was born, the petitioner and their family members started to harass the 1st respondent and abused her in filthy language and the petitioner used to come in a drunken state and assault her/wife and he used to bring grocery only for a period of 15 days. But despite request, he refused to bring the foodgrains for the remaining 15 days in a month. She tolerated the acts of the petitioner with a hope that he would mend his ways in future. It is the case of the 1st respondent/wife that her daughter has undergone operation of kidney and her father met the expenses incurred to an extent of Rs.60,000/and the petitioner has incurred the expenses of Rs.20,000/for the operation. The petitioner is doing the business of rubber stamp and he has not paid maintenance since two and half years. Hence, she was constrained to file a petition before the Family Court. 3. The petitioner/husband appeared before the Family Court and filed his objections denying all the allegations against him but admitted the relationship with the respondents. He further stated that the 1st respondent/wife is not interested in his company even from the date of marriage. She always used to go to her parental house against his will. The 2nd respondent was suffering from serious medical aspects for which he borne all the medical expenses by selling gold ornaments of his mother. He is ready and willing to lead married life with the respondent/wife. Though he is getting meager income from his avocation, he has to pay the medical expenses of his aged mother and hence, not capable of providing separate maintenance to the respondents, etc. 4. In order to establish her case, the 1st respondent/wife examined herself as P.W.1 and marked the documents Exs.P.1 and P.2. Though he is getting meager income from his avocation, he has to pay the medical expenses of his aged mother and hence, not capable of providing separate maintenance to the respondents, etc. 4. In order to establish her case, the 1st respondent/wife examined herself as P.W.1 and marked the documents Exs.P.1 and P.2. Petitioner/husband examined himself as R.W.1 and marked the documents Exs.R.1 and 2. 5. After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court by its impugned order dated 10.6.2014 granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.1,000/to the 2nd respondent/daughter from the date of order, against which the present revision petition is filed. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri Girish A. Yadwad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is contrary to the material on record since the 1st respondent/wife is not entitled to any maintenance as she has deserted her husband/petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. He also invited attention of this Court to the defence taken in the statement of objections as well as the evidence before the Court. He also contended that Ex.R.2 – the medical bills produced by the petitioner before the Family Court clearly depicts that he has paid the entire medical bills. Learned Counsel also contended that without considering the evidence on record and fact that the 1st respondent herself has withdrawn from the company of the petitioner as the atmosphere did not suit her at Bagalkot and therefore, she was residing in a city like Belgaum, granting maintenance of Rs.2,500/to the respondent/wife is contrary to the provisions of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he requested the Court to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned Counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order specifically contending that the petitioner/husband has not taken care of the 1st respondent/wife as well as the minor daughter and he used to quarrel with the 1st respondent/wife and assault her. The petitioner himself has deserted the respondents since three years and hence, she was forced to go to her parental house along with child. She further contended that the maintenance granted by the Family Court is in accordance with law and therefore, this Court cannot interfere. The petitioner himself has deserted the respondents since three years and hence, she was forced to go to her parental house along with child. She further contended that the maintenance granted by the Family Court is in accordance with law and therefore, this Court cannot interfere. Hence, she requested the Court to dismiss the petition. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. So far as the 1st contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent/wife herself has deserted the petitioner/husband and in view of the provisions of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., she is not entitled for any maintenance, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in the petition filed before the Family Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the 1st respondent/wife has in categorical terms stated as under:: xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. The wife, who has examined herself as P.W.1 on oath has stated that she stayed in her matrimonial home along with her husband only for one month and then she stayed with her parents in Belgaum for 2 months and then she came back to her matrimonial home. Again after staying for 4 months along with her husband, she came to her parental house. She has denied the fact that she herself was staying away from her husband. She has also denied the fact that in a year, she was residing with her parents for about 8 to 10 months and also denied the fact that her husband has paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh for the medical expenses of their daughter. She has also stated that she has borne the medical expenses incurred for her daughter by producing the bills Exs.P.1 to 5 and she also stated that her husband has taken some bills from her. She has also stated that she has borne the medical expenses incurred for her daughter by producing the bills Exs.P.1 to 5 and she also stated that her husband has taken some bills from her. Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court recorded a finding that the evidence of R.W.1 discloses that his mother used to quarrel with the 1st respondent/wife for the reasons that she used to become very angry in the house; She used to insult him because he was poor, but the said contention has not been taken by the petitioner; It has also taken note the admission of the petitioner that there was a panchayat convened in the house of the 1st respondent to resolve the dispute between the husband and wife but he has stated that only once a conciliation was held in the house of the 1st respondent. He has admitted that the respondents are residing separately since 3 years. Further he used to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/for the expenses of his daughter for which he has not produced any documentary evidence. Evidence on record clearly proves that the petitioner has not brought sufficient food grains to the house and not provided food to the respondents, for which his wife/1st respondent went to her parental house and stayed there for some days for food purpose and thereafter, they returned to the matrimonial house. Since for the last 3 years, the respondent has not provided any maintenance to the respondents. The petitioner has deliberately and completely neglected the respondents. If really he had love and affection, he would have taken to his marital home to lead a life. Even now, he has not come forward to take back the respondents. Hence, it has come to the conclusion that the stay of the 1st respondents with child in her parental house is justifiable. Therefore, the contention raised by Sri. Girish A. Yadwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., are attracted cannot be accepted. There is sufficient reason both in the petition and evidence of P.W.1 as well as the finding recorded by the Family Court that the petitioner has deserted the respondents for more than 3 years and deliberately neglected them completely. Girish A. Yadwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., are attracted cannot be accepted. There is sufficient reason both in the petition and evidence of P.W.1 as well as the finding recorded by the Family Court that the petitioner has deserted the respondents for more than 3 years and deliberately neglected them completely. Such a finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 12. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, the Family Court has specifically recorded a finding that admittedly the petitioner is doing a rubber stamp business. As per the admission of the petitioner himself, he is doing the rubber stamp business at Bagalkot and earning good income. It is his bounden duty and also the obligation to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter. For the last 3 years, he has not paid a single paisa to his wife or to his daughter. Considering the needs of the respondents and financial status of the petitioner and considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the Family Court has granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/to his wife/1st respondent and Rs.1,000/to his daughter/2nd respondent till she attains majority and the same is in accordance with law. 13. It is relevant to state at this stage that the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, unable to maintain herself or his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, he has to pay maintenance. In the present case, based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner has got sufficient means and deliberately and will fully neglected the respondents and refused to pay the maintenance. Therefore, the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is attracted in the present case. In the present case, based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner has got sufficient means and deliberately and will fully neglected the respondents and refused to pay the maintenance. Therefore, the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is attracted in the present case. Considering the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 , at para3 it is held as under: “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.” 14. 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.” 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons and the law declared by the Apex Court in the case stated supra, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is in accordance with law. I see no good ground to interfere with the same under the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.