Karnataka High Court

Smt. Shakuntala T S vs Shambhuling R Doddamani on 23 May, 2022

Bench: E.S.Indiresh

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

               RPFC. NO.73 OF 2018

BETWEEN

1 . SMT. SHAKUNTALA T S
    W/O SHAMBHULING R DODDAMANI,
    D/O TALWAR SANNAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

2 . DIVYA S D
    D/O SHAMBHULING R DODDAMANI,
    AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

3 . LAVESH D
    S/O SHAMBHULING R DODDAMANI,
    AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

   (PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE
   REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
   NATURAL GUARDIAN
   SMT. SHAKUNTALA T S)

   ALL ARE R/AT NO.153,
   2ND CROSS, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR,
   4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT,
   BENGALURU-560096


   PRESENTLY R/AT NO.47,
   RAMAKRISHNANAGAR
                            2




   RAILWAYMEN, BEHIND
   RAJA RAJESHWARI ENGLISH SCHOOL,
   NANDINI LAYOUT,
   BENGALURU-560096.

                                         ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANANDEESHWARA D R , ADVOCATE)

AND

SHAMBHULING R DODDAMANI
S/O RAMCHANDRA H DODDAMNI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.E6/4,
DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD,
DRDO TOWNSHIP PHASE -I,
C.V RAMAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560093

                                        ....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R M PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

      THIS R.P.F.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 26.04.2018 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.404 OF 2014
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU. DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.


      THIS R.P.F.C. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3




                                ORDER

In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the

order dated 26.04.2018 passed in Criminal Misc.No.404 of

2014 by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at

Bengaluru, dismissing the petition filed under Section 125 of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Brief facts are that, petitioner No.1 is the legally

wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was

solemnized on 10.05.2001 at Hirekerur as per Hindu customs

and traditions. In the wedlock, two children were born to

petitioner No.1 and respondent. It is further stated in the

petition that petitioner No.1 is a Doctor by profession and

she is working in the Hospital run by Central Government

and respondent is working as Scientist at DRDO at

Bengaluru.

3. Perusal of the finding recorded by the trial Court

would indicate that there is matrimonial dispute between the

parties and it is also forthcoming from the finding recorded

by the trial Court that the respondent herein has filed MC

No. 511 of 2012 before the competent court, seeking

dissolution of marriage. The grievance of the petitioners is

that the respondent has totally neglected them and failed to

provide maintenance to the petitioners and as such, the

petitioners have approached the trial Court by filing petition

in Criminal Misc.No.404 of 2014 under Section 125 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

4. On service of notice, respondent entered

appearance and filed statement of objections. Petitioner No.1

was examined as PW1 and she has produced 11 documents

and same were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. On the other hand,

the respondent was examined as RW1 and he has not

marked any documents. The Family Court, after considering

the material on record, by order dated 26.04.2018,

dismissed the petition and feeling aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners have presented this Revision Petition.

5. I have heard Sri Anandeeshwara D.R., learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri R.M.Prakash,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. Sri. Anandeeshwara D.R., learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of the

court to the finding recorded by the trial Court, wherein the

trial Court recorded the finding that petitioner No.1 has to

contribute for the maintenance of the children and petitioner

No.1 has willfully deserted the respondent and the said

findings are incorrect, which requires to be interfered in this

petition.

7. Per contra, Sri R M Prakash, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned

order passed by the Family Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties, I have carefully examined the impugned order

passed by the Family court, which indicate that the petitioner

No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their

marriage was solemnized on 10.05.2001 at Herekerur as per

the Hindu Customs and traditions and in wedlock, petitioners

2 and 3 were born. It is not disputed that petitioner No.1 is a

Doctor by profession and working in a Hospital run by Central

Government and, it is also not in dispute that the respondent

herein is working at DRDO as a Scientist. Considering the

factual aspects of the case and the finding recorded by the

trial Court, it is useful to refer the law declared by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs.

Shahid Khan, reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025, wherein

paragraph 15 of the judgment reads as under:

15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month.

It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as

the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors.[13] has held as follows:-

"The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."

9. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex

Court referred to above, it is bounden duty of the husband to

look after the wife and children and therefore, I am of the

view that the finding recorded by the trial Court at

paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment is contrary to the

observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to

above. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) The Revision Petition is allowed;

ii) Judgment dated 26.04.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.404 of 2014 by I Additional principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is set aside;

iii) The entire case is remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Family court is directed to appreciate the material on record with the aid of law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

iv) Since the parties are represented before this Court, in order to avoid further delay in the matter, parties

are directed to appear before the Family Court, on 13.06.2022, without waiting for further notice in this regard.