Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 138 (KAR)

Ravikumar v. Soubhagyalaxmi @ Laxmi

2016-02-09

B.VEERAPPA

body2016
ORDER : 1. The husband filed the above writ petition against the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubli, on the interim application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short), granting an interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent-wife. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemanised on 30.05.2013 at Kundagol as per the Hindu customs. Thereafter, during the month of April, 2015, the respondent filed a Criminal Misc. Case No. 39/2015 under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. before the JMFC, Kundagol for maintenance, alleging that the present petitioner demanding dowry at the instance of his mother and refused to maintain the respondent-wife. In the said case, the learned JMFC, Kundagol has granted a maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a matrimonial case in M.C. No. 60/2015, under the provisions of Section 13(1a) and (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of the said matrimonial case, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner-husband. The said application was resisted by the petitioner. 3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family court by the impugned order dated 07.09.2015, allowed the application in part and granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent-wife. Against the said order the present writ petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 5. Sri. Ravi S. Muttur, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Family court granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/- p.m. to the respondent-wife is contrary to law and the Family Court failed to notice that already the respondent got maintenance in Crl. Misc. No. 39/2015 by the learned JMFC, Kundagol. He contended that the Family Court ought not have granted any interim maintenance and therefore, sought to allow the writ petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire materials on record. 7. Misc. No. 39/2015 by the learned JMFC, Kundagol. He contended that the Family Court ought not have granted any interim maintenance and therefore, sought to allow the writ petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire materials on record. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemanised on 30.05.2013. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent filed Crl. Misc. No. 39/2015 under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. and obtained maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. It is also not in dispute that the said order passed by the JMFC granting maintenance to the respondent-wife is not at all questioned by the present petitioner-husband. It is an admitted fact that the present petitioner-husband filed a matrimonial case under the provisions of Section 13(1a)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage, on the ground of cruelty and desertion. During the pendency of the said petition, the present application is filed for maintenance. The Family Court while considering the material on record, recorded a finding that the petitioner is an expert technician and he was working privately and getting Rs. 10,000/- per month and he is also receiving rentals from the house and leading luxurious life. The family Court further recorded that in spite of the orders passed in Crl. Misc. No. 39/2015, granting maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month, the petitioner has not made any payment and the wife has also initiated recovery proceedings. Merely because the interim maintenance is ordered in criminal proceedings is not a bar to maintain application under Section 24 of the Act. Accordingly, the Family Court allowed the application in part granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. 8. The cause of action for filing the petition under the provisions of Section 13(1a)(1b) and application filed under Section 24 of the Act would arise only when there is matrimonial proceedings initiated between the husband and wife. Primary requirement for claiming interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act is pendency of a matrimonial proceedings. It ensures maintenance to party to enable him or her to maintain during the pendency of proceedings and also the Court may award reasonable amount for the purpose of conducting matrimonial proceedings. Primary requirement for claiming interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act is pendency of a matrimonial proceedings. It ensures maintenance to party to enable him or her to maintain during the pendency of proceedings and also the Court may award reasonable amount for the purpose of conducting matrimonial proceedings. The maintenance under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act pre-supposes that the party has no independent income. Therefore, the maintenance granted in the absence of any income for the applicant to maintain herself during pendency of the proceedings. The remedy provided under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is totally for a different purpose. It does not oust jurisdiction of the Family Court to award maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. The scope of proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is purely a summary proceeding. Therefore, the same operates in entirely different sphere. There is ceiling prescribed for purpose of granting maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. It seeks to maintain an equilibrium between two parties to litigation during the pendency of proceeding as it makes provision for payment of maintenance for a party who was in a disadvantageous position to maintain and to contest the proceeding. If there was a pre-existing order to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. said order could be taken note of by matrimonial Court in a proceeding under Section 24 of the Act. However, currency of such order would not stand in the way of Court in granting maintenance under Section 24 of the said Act. Therefore, Family Court, in an application under Section 24 of the Act was entitled to consider order passed by Magistrate under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for purpose of arriving at interim maintenance. Maintenance under Section 24 of the Act is interim in nature, which would be in operation till disposal of matrimonial proceedings. Therefore, maintenance proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr. P.C. cannot be dismissed on ground of a pre-existing order under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. 9. Admittedly, in the present case, the husband has not produced any material document to show that the wife has got any independent income to maintain herself. In the absence of any material produced before the Court, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife during the pendency of the proceedings of matrimonial case. 9. Admittedly, in the present case, the husband has not produced any material document to show that the wife has got any independent income to maintain herself. In the absence of any material produced before the Court, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife during the pendency of the proceedings of matrimonial case. The fact that the petitioner-husband has not paid single pie to the respondent in spite of the interim maintenance granted in criminal case under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is not disputed. The Family Court, considering the interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. granted in criminal case, has proceeded to pass the impugned order and the same is in accordance with law. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 125 Cr. P.C. in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and Others, AIR 2014 SC 2875 , has held as under:- “2. 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 un-person to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in a 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. 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.” 11. In view of the admitted facts of the present case and the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court is just and reasonable. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.