Karnataka High Court
Mr. Santhosh Kumar K P vs Smt. Sudha J on 3 January, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:204
WP No. 24599 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24599 OF 2023 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MR. SANTHOSH KUMAR K P
S/O MR PUTTASWAMY,
AGED 38 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDING AT NO.278,
KOTATHI VILLAGE, KOTATHI HOBLI,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS M/S INFOSYS LTD,
ENGINEER, ELECTRONICS CITY,
HOSUR ROAD, BENAGALURU - 100
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGARAMU V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUDHA J
W/O MR SANTHOSH KUMAR K P,
Digitally signed by AGED 30 YEARS,
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH 2. CHI DHEERAJ S. GOWDA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O MR SANTHOSH KUMAR K P,
AGED ABOUT 1 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GURADIAN
MOTHER: SUDHA J / FIRST PETITIONER
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1751,
4TH CROSS, NEAR MARUTHI TENT,
JANATHA NAGARA, T K LAYOUT,
MYSURU - 570 009
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:204
WP No. 24599 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE/MODIFY / ALTER
THE ORDERS ON IA NO.2 IN CRL.MISC.NO.293/2023, FILED U/S
125(1) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-1973, PASSED BY THE
HONBLE 1ST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT
MYSURU DTD 11.09.2023 TO THE EXTENT OF THE ORDER IN
RESPECT OF THE R1 HEREIN/FIRST PETITIONER/SMT SUDHA.J IN
CRL.MISC.NO.293/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO TO CONSIDER
THE PETITIONERS CLAIM/DEFENCE FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL
RIGHTS WITH COST.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an
order dated 11.09.2023 passed on a application filed under
Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from the hands
of the husband.
2. Heard Sri.Rangaramu V., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner/husband.
3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner is the husband and respondent No.1 is his
wife. The two get married on 14.06.2021 and a child is born
from the wedlock on 15.03.2022. It transpires that the
relationship between the petitioner and the husband flounders
and on such floundering of the relationship, the proceedings are
taken up by the petitioner and the respondent both. One for
NC: 2024:KHC:204
seeking restitution of conjugal rights by the husband and
respondent filing Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C., to maintain herself and a 12 month old baby. The
petition is allowed by directing maintenance to be paid at
Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioner then prefers RPFC,
which was sent to be not maintainable and therefore, the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the amount awarded is on the higher side, as the
petitioner himself was paying Rs.10,000/- maintenance to the
wife even before the said order.
5. According to him, the order was unnecessary and
he has the responsibility of maintaining his parents as well. His
avocation does not permit him to pay maintenance of
Rs.25,000/- per month.
6. The said submission is noted only to be rejected.
The concerned Court has in detail considered the affidavits filed
by the respective parties, comes to conclude that the amount
that the respondent - wife earns was not enough for
maintaining the child and the contention of the wife is that the
NC: 2024:KHC:204
petitioner - husband is working in Infosys and is earning a
salary of Rs.2 lakhs, which the learned counsel for the
petitioner disputes. Be that submission as it is.
7. What is awarded is Rs.20,000/- to the wife and
Rs.5,000/- to a 12 month old baby, which the wife has to
maintain. The amount so awarded is not on the higher side for
this Court to interfere at this juncture. Any interference at the
hands of this Court with the order impugned would run foul of
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG AND
ANOTHER v. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1314, wherein it is held as follows:
"10. This Court had made the above
observations as the Court felt that the Family Court
in the said case had conducted the proceedings
without being alive to the objects and reasons, and
the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of
the Code. Such an impression has also been
gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The
Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of
law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to
provide financial support to the wife and to the
minor children. The husband is required to earn
money even by physical labour, if he is an able-
bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except
on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in
the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, it has been
held that the object of maintenance proceedings is
not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to
prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted
wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter
by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court,
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice
NC: 2024:KHC:204
and is specially enacted to protect women and
children. It also falls within the Constitutional
sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of
the Constitution of India.
11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not
only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled
legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in
absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right
of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the
appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed
to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance
of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards
for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or
for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife
in her evidence before the Court had remained
unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the
Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the
oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any
evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing
the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court
could not have passed the order believing the oral
submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent.
She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and
subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had
constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along
with her children, and as to how the respondent had
failed and neglected to maintain her and her children.
She had also proved by producing the documentary
evidence that her father had paid money to the
respondent from time to time to help the respondent for
his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry
by the respondent were not believed, there was enough
evidence to believe that money was being paid to the
respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which
substantiated her allegation that the respondent was
demanding money from her father and was subjecting
her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone
to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that
Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on
record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His
application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family
Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the
Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no. 2-son
was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed
NC: 2024:KHC:204
itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-
wife.
12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of
Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the
High Court by passing a very perfunctory
impugned order. The High Court, without assigning
any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very
casual manner. This Court would have remanded
the matter back to the High Court for considering it
afresh, however considering the fact that the
matter has been pending before this Court since
the last four years, and remanding it back would
further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it
proper to pass this order.
13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent, and by the
respondent himself that he has no source of income as
his party business has now been closed, the Court is
neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such
submissions. The respondent being an able-bodied,
he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and
maintain his wife and the minor child. Having
regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before
the Family Court, and having regard to the other
evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in
holding that though the respondent had sufficient
source of income and was able-bodied, had failed
and neglected to maintain the appellants.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances,
we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance
of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife,
over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs.
6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the
appellant no. 2-son.
14. It is accordingly directed that the
respondent shall pay maintenance amount of Rs.
10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the
date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before
the Family Court. The entire amount of arrears shall be
deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within
eight weeks from today, after adjusting the amount, if
any, already paid or deposited by him."
(Emphasis supplied)
NC: 2024:KHC:204
8. In the light of the facts narrated hereinabove and
the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, the petition lacking
in merit deserves to be rejected and accordingly, rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KG
