Karnataka High Court
Vinayak S/O Prakash Sowshikar vs Smt.Shruti W/O Vinayak Sowshikar on 24 March, 2022
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24 t h DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
R.P.F.C. NO.100081/2019
BETWEEN
VINAYAK S/O PRAKASH SOWSHIKAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: SALES MAN,
R/O: VEERAPUR ONI,
NEAR HABEEB MILL,
HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A.PUROHIT, ADV.)
AND
SMT.SHRUTI W/O VINAYAK SOWSHI KAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MULGUND,
TQ: and DIST: GADAG-582101.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT-SERVED)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECT ION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 10.06.2019, IN CRL.MISC. NO.244/2018, ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRI NCIPAL FAMILY COURT,
GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS RPFC COMI NG ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT , MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Challenging order dated 10.06.2019 passed by I
Addl. Principal Family Court, Gadag, in
Cri.Misc.No.244/2018, awarding monthly maintenance
of Rs.1,500/- to his wife, this revision petition is filed
by husband.
2. For sake of convenience, henceforth
petitioner and respondent herein would be referred as
'husband' and 'wife' respectively.
3. Brief facts as stated are that, parties hereto
got married on 22.12.2016 at Mahabaleshwara Kalyan
Mantap, Veerapur Oni, Hubli, as per Hindu customs
and rituals. After marriage, they lived together at
matrimonial home for sometime. Thereafter due to
misunderstanding, they began living separately.
Wife filed an application under Section 125 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, for maintenance alleging
that husband ill-treated her by making her work as
maid. And even when her father was unwell, she was
not allowed to see her father. After his death,
husband began demanding his property as dowry. On
28.10.2018, he assaulted her and sent her away from
matrimonial home. Despite having sufficient means,
husband neglected to provide maintenance and
deserted her.
She also stated that husband was earning rental
income of Rs.60,000/- to 70,000/- per month, but she
was not having any source of income claimed
maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month.
4. On service of notice, husband entered
appearance and filed objections. It was contended
that he was working as helper in a cloth shop and
earning Rs.5,500/- per month and that his wife had
voluntarily deserted him. He also stated that he had
filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence he
sought for dismissal of petition.
5. On consideration, Family Court awarded
monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to wife. Aggrieved
by the same, husband is before this Court.
6. Sri Raghavendra A.Purohit, learned counsel
for husband submitted that wife had voluntarily left
him without any just cause and therefore, she was
not entitled for maintenance. Family Court also failed
to consider that husband had filed petition for
restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, Family Court
was not justified in awarding Rs.1,500/- per month as
maintenance, which was exorbitant and sought for
setting aside order of Family Court.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused material
available on record.
8. The only point that would arise for
consideration in this petition is:
"Whether impugned order of Family Court
suffers from any illegality, irregularity or
perversity warranting interference by this
Court?"
9. At the outset, it is seen that there is no
dispute about marriage and relationship between
parties. However as they allege desertion against
each other, the controversy narrows down to
entitlement for maintenance and quantum. In order to
establish her claim, wife has pleaded that husband
threw her out of matrimonial house after making
demand for dowry. She also pleaded that husband
possessed sufficient means to provide monthly
maintenance as he was earning rental income of
Rs.60,000/- to 70,000/- per month besides working
as helper in cloth shop. She also stated that she was
unemployed and without any source of income.
10. On the other hand, husband denied earning
rental income as alleged. He admitted that he was
working in Raymond cloth store, Hubli and earning
monthly salary of Rs.6,165/-. To establish same, he
produced salary slip. He also alleged that wife had
deserted him and he had filed petition for restitution
of conjugal rights by producing copy of petition in
M.C.No.28/2019. He also contended that during
sickness of his father-in-law, he had paid for his
treatment and denied demanding dowry.
11. From the above, it is established that
husband and wife are residing separately. The reason
for denying payment of maintenance to wife by
husband is his allegation that she deserted him. But
he is yet to establish the same in M.C.No.28/2019.
Infact, trial Court has noted that said petition is filed
after filing of instant petition by wife. Therefore,
there is no justification for denying maintenance to
wife.
12. The only remaining aspect would be the
quantum of maintenance. In the case husband has
admitted that he is employed. As per salary slips
produced as Exs.R1 to R4, his salary is Rs.6,165/- per
month. Assertion of wife of rental income of
Rs.60,000/- to 70,000/- is not established. As
husband has failed to prove that he is providing
maintenance to his wife or to establish that she has
sufficient means to maintain herself, he cannot
escape from paying maintenance under provisions of
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
13. In the impugned order, Family Court has
awarded a meagre amount of Rs.1,500/- per month
which considering present day cost of living cannot be
stated to be excessive. Therefore, neither of the
grounds urged are meritorious. I do not find any
reason to interfere with reasoned order passed by
Family Court.
14. In the result, revision petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
CLK
