IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.50506 OF 2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
NAGESH KUMAR R S/O. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT DEVARAYAPATNA NEW EXTENSION TUMKURU - 572103 (BY SMT. MANJULA D., ADV.,) AND:
1. MOHANKUMARI M.M W/O. NAGESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 2. IMPANA D/O. NAGESH KUMAR R AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS 2ND RESPONDENT IS A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN-MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT NOW BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GURU KRUPA B.A.GUDI PALYA ROAD BEHIND SLN CHOULTRY ... PETITIONER HANUMANTHAPURA TUMKURU – 572 103.
…RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2019 IN CRL.MIS.NO.180/2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU IN I.A.NO.II/2019, COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-J AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner/husband has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 24.09.2019 made in Crl.Misc.No.180/2018 on I.A.No.II awarding Rs.3,500/- to first respondent/wife and Rs.2,500/- to second respondent/daughter of petitioner who is aged about 06 years from the date of petition and till the disposal of the same.
2. First respondent/wife and second respondent/daughter represented by her mother-first respondent have filed a petition in Crl.Misc.No.180/2018 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking permanent maintenance of Rs.7,500/- each to both respondents herein, from petitioner/husband contending that the marriage between petitioner and first respondent was solemnized on 22.06.2011 and out of the wedlock, second respondent was born. It is further contended that the petitioner and first respondent had constructed a residential house by availing loan. Respondent No.1-wife invested nearly five lakhs and her manual power to construct the house and the same was received from her parents. Both petitioner and respondents are living in the said house. But in order to give troubule to the respondents, the petitioner intentionally transferred the said house into his mother’s name by way of gift, in order to give mental torture to the respondents i.e., none other than his wife and daughter. It is further contended that due to the torture meted out to respondent No.1-wife by petitioner/husband, went under the depression and she is suffering from joint pain problem and she is not able to do any job to eke-out her livelihood and she is not capable to maintain herself and she is not in a positition to give good eduction to her child by receiving maintenance of Rs.6,500/- per month and it is further contended that the petitioner is getting handsome salary etc., 3. The petitioner has filed the objections to the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and not denied the marriage between himself and first respondent and also not denied the relationshiop between the parties and also not denied that he is working as Clerk in HMS Diploma college, Shettihalli Tumkur and drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month and sought to dismiss the petition.
4. First respondent/wife filed application under Section 125(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each to both respondents herein, reiterating the averments made in the main petitiion and the same was opposed by petitioner/husband by filing objections. The Family Court considering the application and objections, by impugned order dated 24.09.2019 allowed the application and awarded interim monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- to first respondent/wife and Rs.2,500/- to second respondent/daughter of petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Smt. Manjula, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court awarding monthly interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to both respondents herein is exorbitant and without any basis. She further contended that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month towards hand loan and he has to take care of his aged parents and she furhter submits that first respondent/wife is also working in a Co-operative Society and drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- p.m., Therefore, she is not entitled for interim maintenance and she sought to allow the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relationship between the parties are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is working in the Technical department of Education and getting salary of Rs.27,482/- per month as observed by the Family Court for the month of May, 2019. When the relationship is not disputed, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner/husband to maintain the wife and daughter who have no means to eke out their livelihood as contemplated under Section 125(1)(a)(b) of Cr.P.C., in view of the dictim of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and Ors. – AIR 2014 SC 2875, at paragraph No.3, held as under:
“3. 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 destitue, 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.”
8. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, the interim maintenance awarded by the family Court is too meager and not sufficient to meet the education expenses of second respondent who is aged about 06 years. Hence, the ground urged by the petitioner/husband that the interim maintenance awarded by the family court is exorbitant is untenable and cannot be accepted.
9. In view of the above, the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court in favour of the respondents is in accordance with law and the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the same in exercise of power under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ