IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR RPFC No.48/2018 BETWEEN E. Raju S/o Eraiah Aged about 51 years Auto Driver R/o #58, 2nd Cross 1st Stage, Gangothri Layout Mysuru – 570 009 (By Sri S.C.Vijayakumar, Advocate) AND 1. Nagaveni W/o E Raju Aged about 35 years 2. Kum. R.Chandana D/o E.Raju Aged about 16 years 3. R.Shrunga D/o E Raju Aged about 15 years Since the respondent Nos.2 and 3 Are minors, represented by their Natural guardian – mother 1st respondent.
…Petitioner All are R/o #58, 2nd Cross 1st Stage, Gangothri Layout Mysuru – 570 009 (By Sri K.Lakshmikanth, Advocate for R1; R2 & R3 are minors represented by R1) …Respondents This RPFC is filed under section 19(4) of Family Courts Act against the order dated 06.01.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.287/2015 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, partly allowing the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for maintenance.
This RPFC coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the respondents’ counsel.
2. The petitioner is the husband in Crl.Misc.No.287/2015 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. The respondents herein initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. First respondent is the wife and second and third respondents are the daughters of the petitioner. They all claim Rs.35,000/- towards maintenance from the petitioner. The Court below after holding an enquiry came to conclusion that the first respondent, i.e., the wife of the petitioner, is also working and therefore denied maintenance to her. However, in relation to respondent Nos.2 and 3, by taking into consideration the overall circumstances relating to the petitioner’s income, came to conclusion that Rs.3,000/- each can be granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and ordered accordingly. Hence this revision petition.
3. It is the argument of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is an auto rickshaw driver; his monthly income does not exceed Rs.6,000/-; he is also re-paying the loan in connection with purchase of Auto rickshaw and an amount of Rs.3,370/- is being paid by him towards loan EMI and in the remaining amount he has to maintain his family and look after his aged mother. The petitioner is ready to pay maintenance, but not to the extent of amount awarded by the Court below. Therefore he prays for reducing the maintenance amount awarded to the children.
4. The counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner owns an auto rickshaw and is also a photographer. The Court below made an observation that the petitioner is getting income from photography and agriculture also. The amount granted by the Court below is in all respects just and proper.
5. If the impugned order is perused, it is seen that the trial Court has not arrived at any conclusion as regards the actual income of the petitioner. But it has taken note of the fact that the petitioner owns auto rickshaw and that he is also paying EMI of Rs.3,370/- per month to the bank. With regard to photography, the petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is not having any devices or instruments relating to photography, but he does photography by hiring the devices. In these circumstances the Court below appears to have come to a conclusion that he is able to part with Rs.3,000/- to each of his children for their maintenance.
6. With regard to these findings of the Court below, it has to be stated that the petitioner may be having income being an auto rickshaw driver and a photographer. When the petitioner is paying EMI of Rs.3,370/- to the bank, the amount he has to part with for paying maintenance to his children must be from the remaining money only. The first respondent is also earning. Therefore it is also her responsibility to bear the responsibility of maintaining the children. In these circumstances, the petitioner should not have been burdened to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The over all circumstances indicate that awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand) each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 will meet the situation. Therefore the following:
ORDER The Review Petition is partly allowed.
Order of the Court below in Crl.Mis.No.287/2015 is modified. The petitioner is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Kmv* Sd/- JUDGE