IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
R.P.F.C. No.100032/2015
BETWEEN:
Mr. Mudassar S/o. Hassansab Navgekar,
Age 28 years, Occ: Private Business,
R/o. New Ansar Galli, Peeranwadi,
Belagavi.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, Advocate)
AND
1. Smt. Wahida W/o. Mudassar Navgekar,
Age : 26 years, Occ: Household work,
2. Ms. Musaddikun D/o. Mudassar Navgekar,
Age about 3 years, since minor
Represented by mother respondent No.1
Both R/o. New Ansar Galli, Peeranwadi,
Belagavi.
...Respondents
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts
Act, 1984, against the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2014 in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.308/2013 on the file of the Judge Family
2
Court, Belgaum, partly allowing the petition filed under Section 125
of Cr.P.C.
This RPFC coming on for orders, this day, the Court, made the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the Judge Family Court, Belagavi, in Crl. Misc. No.308 of 2013.
2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking for monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for the 1st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- per month for 2nd petitioner was filed by the Mrs. Wahida W/o. Mudassar Navgekar and Ms. Musaddikun D/o. Muddasar Navgekar against respondent Sri. Mudassar S/o. Hassansab Navgekar. In the application, it was stated that the petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent the petitioner No.2 is their daughter. It was stated that the couple led happy married life for a period of three months. After marriage, thereafter the respondent began ill-treating and neglecting the petitioner. She was also assaulted on many 3 occasions for which she had filed complaint against the respondent. The respondent was in private service as a Welder and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. He was also having agricultural lands and was earning more than Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and was capable of paying the maintenance amount sought for.
3. Despite service of notice, the respondent did not appear and contest the matter. He was placed ex-parte.
4. In support of her claim, the petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked her wedding card as Ex.P.1.
5. On consideration, the Family Court framed following points for its consideration:
i) Whether the petitioners prove that the respondent having sufficient means has neglected or refused to main them?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to first petitioner and Rs.5,000/- per month to second petitioner from the respondent as sought for?
iii) What order?
4
6. On consideration of the evidence, the Family Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 partly in the affirmative and passed the impugned order holding the petitioner No.1 entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and the 2nd respondent for monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- from the date of the order payable by the respondent. Challenging the said order, the respondent-husband is in appeal. Despite order of notice to respondents, petitioner has failed to take effective steps for service of notice on respondents.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned Judgment.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without proper service, the Family Court placed the petitioner ex- parte. Without any proper justification or adequate evidence, the Family Court determined the monthly maintenance payable by the petitioner to the respondents at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- to petitioner No.2. The Family Court failed to notice that absolutely no reliable evidence was placed by the petitioners to support their claim for maintenance. Except the self 5 serving evidence, the petitioner absolutely failed to lead evidence. The petitioner merely produced copy of the wedding card and no document were produced to substantiate that the respondent was capable of paying the maintenance sought for nor to establish that the respondent neglected or refused to maintain them.
9. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment.
10. In an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., petitioner is required to establish that she is unable to maintain herself and respondent having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain her. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan reported in 1999 (6) SCC 326 has held that, a statement by wife that she was unable to maintain herself would be sufficient and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise. It was further held that, burden lies on husband to prove that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation or he did not neglect or refuse to maintain her. In the case on hand, petitioner has unequivocally asserted that she is unable to maintain herself. She has also stated about hostile treatment meted out to 6 her by respondent constraining her to leave her husband. On the other hand, respondent-husband failed to lead any evidence either to disprove her inability to maintain herself or to substantiate his defence that he does not have sufficient means or that he did not neglect or refuse to maintain her. Thus, it has to be held that petitioner established that she is unable to maintain herself.
11. Insofar as the amount of maintenance required to be awarded, the petitioner has stated that the respondent was a skilled workman working as a Welder and earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month. The proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. being summary in nature, the strict proof of all the assertions is not necessary. In the absence of any definite evidence led by the respondent-husband, the Family Court has assessed the monthly maintenance required by the petitioners, notionally at the rate of Rs.3,000/- in favour of the petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- in favour of petitioner No.1. The same is not exorbitant and appears bare minimum for sustenance of the petitioners. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out on quantum of maintenance. 7
In the result, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-