Karnataka High Court
Sri D Nataraj vs Smt. Aruna Kumari @ Aruna on 4 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
RPFC No. 65 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 65 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI D NATARAJ
S/O SRI DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT KENKERE VILLAGE
HEMAVATHI POST
AMARAPURAM MANDAL
MADAKSIRA TALUK
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-515286
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARAVIND REDDY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by R SMT. ARUNA KUMARI @ ARUNA
DEEPA D/O M GIRIYAPPA
Location: AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF R/O C/O KARUNAKARA
KARNATAKA S/O LATE RAMAIAH
SRI RAMA NILAYA, JYOTHIPURA
BELAGUMBA ROAD, KASABA HOBLI
TUMAKURU
PERMANENTLY R/AT
HONNAGONDANAHALLI
GOLLARAHATTI, SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572137
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BABU T C & SANDEEP S, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
RPFC No. 65 of 2022
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2022 PASSED
IN CRL.MISC No.04/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE C/c I
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF
Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is filed under section 19(4) of
the Family Court Act, challenging the order dated
19.02.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.4/2021 by the I
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this
revision petition are as follows:
The petitioner's marriage was performed with the
respondent as per the customs prevailing in their
community on 02.02.2013. After the marriage, the
respondent joined with the petitioner and led a happy
married life for four years in the petitioner's house. As the
respondent did not conceive, she requested that the
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
petitioner and his parents consult a Gynecologist. The
petitioner and his parents declined the respondent's
request. Even the petitioner and his parents have refused
to provide treatment for the respondent, and she
underwent surgery on her eye with the assistance of her
parents. The petitioner and his parents started physically
and mentally harassing the respondent because she did
not conceive and further demanded a dowry. The
petitioner and his parents drove the respondent from the
marital house in November 2019 to perform the second
marriage of the petitioner with the daughter of his sister.
The respondent is ready to lead a married life with
the petitioner, but the petitioner is not prepared to take
back. The respondent does not have any source of income
and is living at the mercy of her parents, who are also
poor. The petitioner owns the mobile shop, has ancestral
properties, and earns more than Rs.40,000/- to
Rs.50,000/- p.m. He has not made any arrangements for
the respondent's maintenance. The respondent requires
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
Rs.15,000/- p.m towards her maintenance. Hence, the
respondent prays to allow the petition.
3. The petitioner filed objections to the petition,
admitting to a marital relationship and living a happy
married life in the petitioner's house for a few days. It is
denied that regarding physical and mental cruelty of the
respondent at the hands of the petitioner, refusal to
provide treatment. It is contended that the respondent is
not interested in living in the joint family with the
petitioner's parents. It is contended that the respondent
was harassing the petitioner for having a separate house
for the respondent. The petitioner denied the same. It is
contended that the petitioner is always ready and willing
to live a married life with the respondent by providing all
necessities out of his small income, but the respondent is
not prepared to live a happy married life with the
petitioner. It is contended that he is working as a
salesman in the shop and getting a salary of Rs.9,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
p.m and he has to maintain his old age parents. Hence,
on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.
4. To substantiate her case, the respondent
examined herself as PW.1 and marked 16 documents as
Exs.P1 to 16. In rebuttal, the petitioner examined himself
as RW.1 and examined 2 witnesses as RW.2 and RW.3,
and no documents were marked. The Family Court, after
recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and the
assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered
point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, point No.4 as per the
final order. The petition filed by the respondent was
allowed. It is held that the respondent is entitled to
maintenance of Rs.8,000/- p.m, from the date of petition
till her lifetime or till her remarriage. It is held that the
respondent is also entitled to litigation expenses of
Rs.3,000/- from the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved
by the judgment passed in Crl.Misc.04/2021 filed this
revision petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is always ready and willing to lead a happy
married life with the respondent and prepared to look after
by providing all the necessities out of his income, but the
respondent is not ready and willing to join the company of
the petitioner. He submits that the respondent is not
entitled to the maintenance as claimed in the petition. He
submits that the petitioner is working as a salesman and
getting a monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m, and out of the
said amount, he has to maintain his old-aged parents, who
are suffering from old age ailments. Hence, the
maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is
exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the
revision petition.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent is the petitioner's wife. The petitioner is under
a legal obligation to maintain his wife. He submits that if
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
the petitioner was interested in leading a happy married
life with the respondent, the petitioner should have filed a
petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He
submits that the petitioner has not attempted to convince
the respondent to lead a happy married life. He submits
that the petitioner has a mobile shop and earns
Rs.40,000/- p.m to Rs.50,000/- p.m from the shop, and
also has immovable properties. The Family Court was
justified in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, he
submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Family
Court is just and proper and does not call for any
interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the revision petition.
8. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The point that arise for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner has made out a
ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment?
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
10. The respondent, to prove her case, examined
herself as PW.1, and she reiterated the petition averments
in the examination-in-chief. Further, to establish the
relationship between the respondent and the petitioner,
the respondent produced a marriage invitation card
marked as Ex.P1 and produced photographs marked as
Exs.P2 to 12. Ex.P13 is CD, Ex.P14 is one receipt, Ex.P15
is patta form, Ex.P16 is RTC extract.
11. From the perusal of photographs produced by
the respondent, it discloses that the marriage of the
respondent was performed with the petitioner as per
customs prevailing in their community. There is no dispute
regarding the relationship between the petitioner and
respondent as husband and wife. In rebuttal, the
petitioner was examined as PW.1. He reiterated the
contents of objections in the examination-in-chief. During
cross-examination, he admitted that he had assaulted the
respondent in the year 2019, and she had suffered an eye
injury and undergone eye surgery. As the petitioner had
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
assaulted the respondent in the year 2019, she decided to
reside separately. The respondent was subject to physical
and mental harassment by the petitioner. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he is providing basic amenities
or basic necessities to the respondent. The petitioner is
the husband of the respondent, is legally bound to
maintain the respondent. The petitioner failed to maintain
his wife. The respondent, to establish that the petitioner
family possesses agricultural lands produced Exs.P15 and
16 are the documents which disclose that the said lands
are standing in the name of the father of the petitioner
and the same is an ancestral property in which the
petitioner has got a share.
12. The petitioner examined the owner of the
Maruti mobile (sales and service) centre at Amarapuram,
wherein the petitioner is working. He has deposed that he
had a trace license issued by the concerned Government's
local body, and he has issued a receipt marked as Ex.P14,
which discloses that the respondent is selling mobile
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
phones. The respondent is suffering mentally and
physically, and she has been compelled to leave her
matrimonial home. Women who are 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 a similar manner as she would have lived in
husband's house. That is where the status and strata of
the husband come into play, and that's where the legal
obligation of the husband becomes prominent. As long as
the wife is held entitled to a maintenance grant within the
parameters of Section 125, Cr.P.C, it has to be adequate
to 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
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44745
is not doing well. These are only bald excuses, and they
have no acceptability in law.
13. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner
has taken a plea that the petitioner has no capacity to pay
the maintenance amount as awarded by the Family Court.
The Family Court, considering the income of the petitioner
and the property owned by his family members, has
rightly granted the maintenance of Rs.8,000/- p.m. to the
respondent. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I
answer point No.1 in the negative.
14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
SKS
