Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1537 (KAR)

Shivanand v. Arati @ Umadevi

2019-07-02

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband, challenging the order passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Criminal Revision Petition No.29/2018 dated 04.08.2018, where under the order passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Bagalkot in Criminal Misc. No.221/2012 dated 08.01.2018 was confirmed by dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and the learned counsel for the respondents-wife and children. 3. Before going to consider the submissions, the facts leading for filing this petition are that, the petitioner and the respondent No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 15.05.2014. Out of the said wedlock, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are born. Thereafter, the petitioner-husband started ill-treating and harassing for demand of additional dowry and the petitioner was under the control of his family members. On 07.11.2011, without there being any just cause, the respondent No.1-wife and the children were driven out from their matrimonial house. Thereafter, they started leaving with their parents and there also they have not been maintained and as such, she started residing in a separate rented house. It is the further contention of the respondents that the petitioner-husband has failed to discharge his matrimonial obligations and has not provided any maintenance and he has neglected to maintain the respondents and as such they filed the case for maintenance. 4. Respondent-husband appeared and filed his objections denying the contents of the petition. He further contended that respondent No.1 herself has deserted the house of the petitioner-husband and she is working as a teacher and she is an earning member. It is further contended that he has filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.6/2012 and the said fact shows that it is the respondent No.1 who deserted the petitioner-husband and as such they are not entitled to any maintenance. 5. The respondents herein have filed a Criminal Misc. No.221/2012 seeking maintenance from the petitioner-husband. In order to prove her case, the petitioner-wife got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1-P17. Thereafter respondent-husband was came to be examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.Rl to R3. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court below awarded maintenance of R.2,500/- per month to each of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order, he preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.29/2018. Thereafter respondent-husband was came to be examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.Rl to R3. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court below awarded maintenance of R.2,500/- per month to each of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order, he preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.29/2018. After considering the materials on records, the said Revision Petition has been dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner-husband is before this Court. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below has erred in dismissing the petition and confirming the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court to the extent of Rs. 2,500/- per month to each of the respondents. It is his further submission that the father of the petitioner is suffering with Cancer and he has to incur huge amount for the said treatment of his father. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Trial Court. It is his further contention that, he has applied under Right to Information Act and he received the information from the Head Master of Shree Veerashaiva Grameena Vidhya Vardhaka Sangha, Shirur which itself shows that the respondent No.1 was working as a Assistant Teacher and was drawing a salary. He submits that this aspect has also not been considered properly by the Trial Court. He submits that, petitioner-husband was also constrained to file MC.No.6/2012 seeking decree of restitution of conjugal rights. This itself clearly goes to show that, he was willing to take her back to the matrimonial house. This aspect was also not properly appreciated. He further submitted that the maintenance awarded by the Court below is on the higher side. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned orders. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-husband has ill-treated and harassed and he has driven them out of the house without any just cause. Thereafter he has neglected to maintain them and after considering the evidence and material placed on record, the Courts below have rightly passed the order by granting maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to each of the respondents (wife and children) from the date of the petition. It is his further submission that till date an amount of Rs. Thereafter he has neglected to maintain them and after considering the evidence and material placed on record, the Courts below have rightly passed the order by granting maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to each of the respondents (wife and children) from the date of the petition. It is his further submission that till date an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is due from the petitioner-husband and he has not paid the said amount. It is his further submission that for some time the respondent No.1 worked in Shri Veerashaiva Grameena Vidhya Vardhaka Sangha, Primary School and she left the school on 01.11.2017 and later she discontinued to work there. Now she is not having any source of income. It is his further submission that, though the petitioner-husband filed M.C.No.6/2012 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the said petition was came to be withdrawn after some time. That itself clearly goes to show that the petitioner was not willing to take back the respondents. When the petitioner-husband has neglected and refused to maintain the wife and children, then by considering the present cost of living and other things, the courts below have awarded the just and proper maintenance to the respondents. It is his further submission that now as on today, the petitioner-husband is working as a teacher and drawing a salary of Rs. 49,870/- and he is not having any liabilities. There are no good grounds to interfere with the orders of the Courts below. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. On close reading of the entire material though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, but the facts remains that as on date, the respondent No.1 is not working as a teacher and she left the services on 01.11.2017. The petitioner-husband has not produced any other documents to show that they are having any other source of income to maintain themselves. In the absence of any such material, the respondent-wife and children are not having any other source of income to maintain themselves, and the petitioner-husband without any just cause has neglected and refused to maintain them, then under such circumstances, they are entitled to the maintenance. In the absence of any such material, the respondent-wife and children are not having any other source of income to maintain themselves, and the petitioner-husband without any just cause has neglected and refused to maintain them, then under such circumstances, they are entitled to the maintenance. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are children who are aged about 11 & 8 respectively. As the respondents are staying alone, for the purpose of the education of the children and their livelihood, maintenance is required and minimum requirement of maintenance which has been fixed by the Trial Court appears to be just and proper, that too when the petitioner-husband is drawing a salary of Rs. 49,870/- as on the date. Even it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband that he has filed restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.6/2012, but it is the contention of the respondent that, subsequently the said petition was came to be withdrawn and the said right has not been pursued. When the said right has not been pursued and the said petition has been withdrawn, which itself clearly goes to show that the petitioner has neglected to take them back without just cause. Under such circumstances also it amounts to refusal to maintain on the part of the petitioner-husband. Looking from any angle, the Courts below have rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband has neglected and refused to maintain the respondents and have not paid any amount for their education and expenses. In that light of the matter, an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to each of the petitioners from the date of the petition is awarded. The said amount of maintenance appears to be just and reasonable. Under the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand, there are no good grounds to interfere with the orders of both the Courts. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.