IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR RPFC No.13 OF 2012 BETWEEN B V Bharadwaj S/o. B V Varadaraj, Aged 41 years, Now R/at No.110, 1st Floor, 6th Main Road, V Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-41.
(By Sri. B.S.Raghu Prasad, Advocate) AND 1. Smt. R.Archana, W/o. B.V.Bharadwaj, Aged 33 years, 2. Kum Chinmayee Bharadwaj, D/o. B V Bharadwaj, Aged 12 years, Being minor rep by mother, 1st petitioner …Petitioner Now both Residing at No.43, 4th Cross, Shankar Nagar, Marappanpalya, Mahalaxmilayout, Bengaluru- 86.
(By Sri. R.Manjunath, Advocate) …Respondents This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act against the judgment dated 19.08.2011 passed in Crl.M.C.No.618/2007 on the file of the Additional Judge, VI Additional Family Court, Bengaluru, partly allowing the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
This RPFC coming on for hearing, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER The petitioner is the respondent in C.Misc.618/2007 on the file of Additional Family Court, Bengaluru. The said petition was filed by the wife and daughter of the petitioner claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court by its judgment dated 19.8.2011 directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.3,000/- per month each for the wife and the daughter. Hence, the husband is before this court questioning the correctness of the same.
2. Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the respondents counsel.
3. The argument of the petitioner’s counsel is that the Family Court has committed an error in fastening the liability on the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife. He argues that the wife is well qualified and was working on the day when the maintenance petition was filed. The answers given by her in the cross-examination clearly show that she was working and earning nearly Rs.17,000/- per month. She was capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, it is his further argument that though the trial court takes notice of these aspects yet it has directed the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance. The petitioner was working as Maintenance Manager of UPS Systems. His income was Rs.9,000/- per month. In these circumstances, the trial court should not have directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each to the wife and daughter. His another point of argument is that the petitioner sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The divorce petition was allowed on the ground of desertion. The wife challenged the said judgment by filing MFA before this court and later on she withdrew it. Therefore, the judgment of the Family Court in divorce petition has become final. When divorce has been granted on the ground of desertion, the husband is not under an obligation to pay maintenance. He prays for allowing this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Family Court has just awarded a meager amount towards maintenance to be paid to the wife and daughter. It is not disputed that the wife was working, but she discontinued the job. Therefore, she did not have income on the day when the maintenance petition was filed. It is the obligation on the part of the husband to maintain the wife who is unable to maintain herself and also the minor daughter. There is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the Family Court.
5. I have perused the impugned order. The trial court has taken note of the fact that the wife is a diploma holder in computer science and that she was working in Mahindra Associates in Bengaluru as front office assistant on a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month and that she was earning Rs.4,000/- after quitting the job. Later on she secured another job on a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and there she worked for about three months. I have gone through the answers given by PW1 in the cross-examination. Clear answer is given by her that for the month of December 2009 she drew a salary of Rs.17,000/-and odd when she was working at New Era Construction Company. She might have denied the suggestion that she was still working there but the circumstances show that she is capable of earning. Section 125 of Cr.P.C makes it very clear that the husband is under an obligation to maintain the wife who is not able to maintain herself. Here is a case where the wife is capable of earning and therefore the Family Court should not have awarded any amount towards maintenance to her much less Rs.3,000/- per month.
6. However, the petitioner’s husband is under an obligation to maintain his daughter till she gets married. What is awarded is a meager amount as Rs.3,000/- towards the daughter cannot be disturbed. Hence, petition is allowed partly. The judgment of the Family Court awarding Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife is set aside. The other part of the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the daughter is not disturbed.
Ckl Sd/- JUDGE