Shilpa And Ors vs Nagareddy
2021 Latest Caselaw 5521 Kant

                        1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               KALABURAGI BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                     BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

              RPFC.No.200045/2020

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.SHILPA W/O NAGAREDDY BHAIREDDY,
   AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
   R/O PLOT NO. 87, "BHAVANI NILAYA",
   SHRESHAIL NAGAR, NEW MAKA LAYOUT,
   KALABURAGI- 585102.

2. NAKSHATRA D/O NAGAREDDY BHAIREDDY,
   AGE 8 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
   R/O PLOT NO. 87, "BHAVANI NILAYA",
   SHRESHAIL NAGAR, NEW MAKA LAYOUT,
   KALABURAGI- 585102.

3. VIBHA D/O NAGAREDDY BHIREDDY,
   AGE 6 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
   R/O PLOT NO. 87, "BHAVANI NILAYA",
   SHRESHAIL NAGAR, NEW MAKA LAYOUT,
   KALABURAGI- 585102.

  (PETITIONER NO.2 AND NO.3 ARE MINORS AND ARE
  U/G OF THEIR MOTHER PETITIONER NO. 1)


                                  ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE)
                               2




AND:

NAGAREDDY S/O MALLANNA BHAIREDDY,
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND
PHYSICAL INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT
FIRST GRADE DEGREE COLLEGE,
JEWARGI, TQ. JEWARGI- 585310
DIST. KALABURAGI.
                               ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.NEEVA M CHIMKOD, ADVOCATE)

     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 (4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
06.05.2020 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE FAMILY
COURT AT KALABURAGI IN CRL.MISC.NO.80/2018 AND
ENHANCE THE MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED FOR IN THE
CLAIM PETITION.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                           ORDER

The present petition is filed by the wife and children

respectively of the respondent/husband aggrieved by the

order dated 06/05/2020 passed in Crl.Misc.No.80/2018 on

the file of District Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi (for

short 'Family Court').

2. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that, her

marriage with respondent was solemnized on 29-05-2011

at Siddharodh Math, Bhimarayanagudi Tq: Shahapur Dist:

Yadgir as per the customs and ritual prevailing in their

community. That out of the marriage, petitioner Nos.2

and 3 were born. That during the marriage parents of the

petitioner No.1 had given 22 1/2 tolas gold, other

household articles. Since the date of marriage, the

respondent was quarreling with the petitioner No.1 at the

instigation of his mother. The respondent had taken house

on rent at Gulbarga and was residing with the petitioners.

Respondent used to go to his work place at Jewargi and

was returning daily. Children were admitted to Marathi

School at jewargi. However, all of a sudden, respondent

had taken all gold articles of the petitioner No.1 and

important documents of the petitioner No.1 and left the

house on 04/11/2017 under the pretext of going to

Bangalore. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 tried to contact

the respondent over phone, but all the efforts went in vain.

The petitioners apparently learnt that the respondent was

residing at his native place Gogi in Shahapur and was

going to his work from the said place. That despite several

efforts by the petitioner No.1, respondent did not join the

company of the petitioners and completely ignored the

petitioners. The petitioner No.1 not being able to maintain

herself and the minor children, requested the respondent

to provide maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month.

However, the respondent refused to pay the maintenance

to the petitioners. It is contended that the respondent

being Assistant Professor at Government First Grade

College, Jewargi was drawing a salary of Rs.80,000/- per

month and also receiving income from the agricultural land

at Gogi village and refusing to provide maintenance to the

petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners constrain to file the

petition in Crl.Misc.No.80/2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C,

seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- each per month.

3. Upon receipt of the summons,

respondent/husband appeared through his counsel and

filed statement of objection denying the averments made

in the petition. It was contended that the respondent is a

permanent resident of Gogi village, he has got old aged

parents. That he had only 3 acres 6 guntas of land

situated at Gogi village and the said lands are dry land,

getting meager income of Rs.15,000-20,000/- per year.

It was contended by the respondent that he petitioner

No.1 was not cooperating with mental and physical needs

of respondent for the last 1 1/2 years and was indulging

with frequent unnecessary arguments with the respondent.

It is contended that the petitioner No.1 always engaged in

audio and video conversation with unknown males even

during midnight hours and beyond while respondent was

asleep. It is also contended that the petitioner No.1 was

short tempered and was quarreling with the respondent all

the time. That the petitioner No.1 got aborted her third

pregnancy to mentally harass the respondent and his

family members. That it is contended that he had paid the

advance of Rs.30,000/- towards rented house and paid the

school fee of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The respondent

allowed the petitioner No.1 to work in the Doordarshan as

News Reader and Guest Lecturer in MSI Degree College

and Akbar Hussaini Degree College, Kalaburagi and she is

getting more than Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore,

sought for dismissal of the petition.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the

Family Court framed the points and recorded the evidence.

Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and exhibited 17

documents marked as Exs.P1 to P17. On the other hand,

respondent examined himself as RW.1 and one Kudasiya

Parvin and Sidramreddy were examined as RWs.2 and 3

respectively. Exhibited 13 documents marked as Exs.R1 to

R13. The Family Court after hearing the parties allowed

the petition in part granting a sum of Rs.6,000/- each per

month to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 from the date of petition

and claim of the petitioner No.1 was however rejected.

Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the Family Court erred in rejecting the petition against

the petitioner No.1 merely because she had completed

L.L.M. Degree and was working as part time Lecturer. He

submits that the same may not be a ground for rejection

of the claim. He submits that the petitioner No.1 is

presently not employed, however, she was working as a

part time Lecturer in the College at the time when the

petition was filed. He submits that in view of the fact that

the petitioner No.1 is presently not working hence she has

to be given maintenance. He relies upon the judgment of

the Gujrath High Court in the case of DUDILA KRISHNA

VS. MANISHA reported in 2021 SCJ 1091, referring to

para-36 of the said judgment he submits that the rejection

of the petition merely because wife was earlier working

and earning income and she lost the job after the marriage

is not a ground for rejection of the claim petition. He

submits that the present circumstances of the wife being

unemployed be taken into consideration and maintenance

to be allowed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent submits that it is not in dispute that the wife

was working as a part time Lecturer in the Syed Akbar

Hussaini PU & Degree College, Kalaburagi and was earning

income at the time when the petition was filed. He further

submits that therefore, order passed by the Family Court

holding that she is capable of maintaining herself. He

submits that no error can be found in the order passed by

the Family Court requiring interference. Hence sought for

rejection of the petition.

8. The marital relationship between the parties is

not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner

No.1 wife being L.L.M. Graduate was working as a part

time Lecturer at Akbar Hussaini PU & Degree College,

Kalaburagi and was also doing anchoring work at

Doordarshan (Chandana Vahini) at the time when the

petition was filed. RW.1 who is the Principal of Syed Akbar

Hussaini PU & Degree College, in his deposition, has

deposed to the effect that the petitioner No.1 was working

as a part time basis. The aforesaid aspect of the matter is

not disputed by the counsel for the parties on record.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C can be invoked only when a

person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to

maintain his wife, unable to maintain herself. In the

instant case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 at the time of

filing of the petition was working as a part time and also

doing anchoring work in Doordarshan (Chandana). In the

facts and circumstances, the Family Court declined to

grant her maintenance as she was capable of maintaining

herself being L.L.M. Graduate and also working as a part

time and from Anchoring as above. The said finding

cannot be faulted with. In view of the Section 125 Cr.P.C,

hereinabove mentioned, the Family Court has granted

maintenance of Rs.6,000/- each per month to the minor

children namely petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein.

9. It is however, the case of the learned counsel

for the petitioner No.1 that presently i.e. after disposal of

the petition, the petitioner No.1 is remained unemployed

and she is not working and is unable to maintain herself.

This may not be a ground to interfere with the order

passed by the Family Court under section 125 Cr.P.C,

admittedly on the date of determination of the petition she

was employed. In the changed circumstances, if the wife

is unemployed, she can maintain another petition under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C as the cause of action is continuing

one. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

matter and in view of the availability of effectual remedy

under Section 125 of Code, the present petition does not

survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.

The observation made above would not come in the

way of the wife seeking any maintenance under the

situation. The same may be adjudicated independently, in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

mkm