Karnataka High Court
Ramakrishna S/O Vishnusa Pujari vs Smt. Vidya W/O Ramakrishna Pujari on 30 May, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
RPFC NO.100006 OF 2018
A/W
RPFC NO.100061 OF 2019
IN RPFC NO.100006.2018
BETWEEN:
RAMAKRISHNA
S/O VISHNUSA PUJARI
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/A PUJARI BROTHERS
BROADWAY
HUBBALLI 580 020
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. VIDYA
W/O RAMAKRISHNA PUJARI
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: NIL
R/A PLOT NO.136, SIMLA NAGAR
(MALLESHWAR NAGAR)
AYODHYA VILLAGE
HUBBALLI 580 024
...RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI S.L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)
This Revision Petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the
Family Court Act against the judgment and order dated
08.11.2017 in Crl.Misc.No.151/2016 on the file of the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, partly allowing the petition filed
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
IN RPFC NO.100061.2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. VIDYA
W/O RAMAKRISHNA PUJARI
AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: NIL
R/A PLOT NO.136, SIMLA NAGAR
(MALLESHWAR NAGAR)
AYODHYA VILLAGE
HUBBALLI 580 024
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAMAKRISHNA
S/O VISHNUSA PUJARI
AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/A PUJARI BROTHERS
BROADWAY
HUBBALLI 580 020
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE)
This Revision Petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the
Family Court Act against the judgment and order dated
08.11.2017 in Crl.Misc.No.151/2016 on the file of the Principal
3
Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, partly allowing the petition filed
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
These Revision Petitions coming on for Orders, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
RPFC No.100006 of 2018 is filed by the husband-
respondent in Cri. Misc. No.151 of 2016 on the file of the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, challenging the order
dated 08th November, 2017 and RPFC No.100061 of 2019 is filed
by the wife in Cri. Misc. No.151 of 2016 on the file of the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, seeking enhancement of
maintenance.
2. Parties to these revision petitions are referred to with
their rank and status before the Family Court.
3. Brief facts for adjudication of these petitions are that,
the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 08th May, 2007 at Krishna Kalayan Mantap,
Hubballi as per the customs of parties. It is the case of the
petitioner-wife that, within a short time of their marriage, the
respondent was harassing the petitioner for trivial reasons and
the respondent-husband was alienating the immovable
properties without reason and contrary to the family necessities
and same was questioned by the petitioner-wife, however, the
respondent forcibly sent the petitioner to her parents house and
thereafter, filed MC No.89 of 2013 before the jurisdictional court
seeking dissolution of marriage. The petitioner has also filed
counter claim, seeking decree of restitution of conjugal rights in
the said petition. It is also narrated in the claim petition that the
petitioner filed suit in OS No.8 of 2015 before the Civil Court to
protect the family property from illegal alienation by the
respondent-husband. It is further averred in the petition that
the petitioner-wife was working as Insurance Agent for Life
Insurance Company of India and her agency was terminated on
31st May, 2013, as the petitioner-wife not fulfilling the minimum
requirement of the business and thereafter she is unable to
maintain herself. The petitioner also contended that the
respondent is having immovable properties and has rented a
house at Hubballi and getting handful of rents from the said
house. Having not tolerated the inhumane harassment meted
out to her, the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home and is
residing with her parents. Hence, the petitioner filed Criminal
Miscellaneous No.151 of 2016 before the Family Court, seeking
maintenance.
4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance
and filed detailed objection to the main petition denying
averments made in the claim petition. It is the specific case of
the respondent-husband that the competent court in MC No.89
of 2013 has granted maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to the
petitioner-wife and as such, denied the claim made by the
petitioner seeking further maintenance in the petition filed under
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to prove
their case, petitioner-wife was examined as PW1 and she has
produced 22 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P22.
Respondent-husband was examined as RW1 and produced three
documents and same were marked as Exhibits R1 to R3. The
Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its
order dated 08th November, 2018 allowed the petition in part
and awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the
petitioner from the date of petition and being not satisfied with
the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, the
petitioner-wife filed RPFC No.100061 of 2019, seeking
enhancement of maintenance and on the other hand the
respondent-husband filed RPFC No.100006 of 2018 challenging
the impugned order of the Family Court, as non-est.
5. I have heard Shri S.S. Niranjan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner-husband and Shri S.L. Matti, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-wife.
6. Sri S.S. Niranjan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner-husband (in writ petition No.100006 of 2018)
contended that the Family Court failed to consider the material
on record, particularly Exhibits R1 to R3, and has not
appreciated the fact related to the earnings of the respondent-
wife. He further contended that the Family Court has also failed
to consider the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA AND OTHER reported in (2021)2
SCC 324. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of KALYAN DEY CHOWDHURY v. RITA DEY
DHOWDHURY NE NANDY reported in AIR 2017 SC 2383 and
contended that the respondent-wife was well-educated and was
an Insurance Agent, earning handful of commission for livelihood
and the said aspect has not been analysed by the Family Judge
and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, Sri S.L. Matti, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-wife argued that the maintenance of Rs.15,000/-
per month is on the lesser side and he further contended that
the petitioner-husband willfully transferred immovable properties
in favour of one Tulsa Bai, as per Exhibit P4 and the petitioner-
husband was a spendthrift and not providing basic necessity for
peaceful running of the matrimonial home and as such, he
contended that award of maintenance by the Family Court at
Rs.15,000/- per month is required to be enhanced. He further
contended that the income tax returns for the year 2014-15
(Exhibit P22) discloses the income of the petitioner at
Rs.28,67,006/- and the petitioner is having immovable
properties and since the prices of essential commodities having
boomed to sky high, it is difficult for the respondent-wife to lead
a dignified life and therefore, sought for enhancement of the
maintenance.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the
Family Court. Perusal of the same would substantiate that there
is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties.
Their marriage was solemnized on 08th May, 2007 at Hubballi.
The petitioner-husband has filed MC No.89 of 2013 against the
respondent-wife seeking dissolution of marriage. Perusal of the
record would indicate that the petitioner-husband has sold
certain immovable properties in favour of one Tulsa Bai (sister-
in-law of the petitioner-husband). The respondent-wife has filed
OS No.8 of 2015, seeking claim in respect of the immovable
properties of the petitioner-husband which came to be
dismissed. It is also forthcoming from the records that the
respondent-wife has filed matrimonial case seeking restitution of
conjugal rights which came to be allowed on 12th January, 2017.
Exhibit P12 is the letter addressed by the LIC of India
terminating the Agency of the respondent-wife. The petitioner-
husband failed to prove that the respondent-wife is having
sufficient means to eke out her livelihood. On the other hand,
the respondent-wife has produced Exhibit P18, which
substantiate the fact that she is staying in a rented premises
paying rent of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Family Court, after
appreciating the material on record, as per the finding recorded
at paragraph 16 of the impugned order, arrived at the conclusion
that the respondent-wife has no source of income and on the
other hand, the petitioner-husband is a business-man and also a
Partner of Pujari Agencies and in that view of the matter, I am of
the view that the respondent-wife has made out a case that she
has been neglected and deserted by the petitioner-husband and
as such, she is entitled for maintenance in terms of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH
(supra) and in the case of BHUVAN MOHAN SINGH v. MEENA
AND OTHERS reported in (2015)6 SCC 353, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that the maintenance is awarded for
sustenance and the said sustenance would not mean animal
existence but signifies leading life in similar manner as she
would have lived in the house of her husband. It is also useful
to refer to the observation by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of BHUVAN MOHAN SINGH (supra), which reads thus:
"2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to
ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman
who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the
provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by
the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if
they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not
necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an
unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic
maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a
life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house
of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into
play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case
of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this
nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of
the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the
solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance
with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation
of the husband to see that the wife does not become a
destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created
whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of
life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the
sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the
husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is
able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order
from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance
from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."
9. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court
referred to above, I am of the view that there is no perversity in
the impugned order passed by the Family Court and the Family
Court, after considering the material on record, taking into
account the status of both the petitioner-husband and the
respondent-wife, awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per
month to the respondent-wife, which is just and proper and the
same does not call for any interference in these petitions.
Accordingly, both petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
