IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.46696/2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
Sunil Kumar N., Son of K.S. Nagaraju, Aged about 32 years, Resident of A, 19th Cross, 22nd Main Road, Shamanna Garden, Sarakki Kere, Gopalaswamy Layout, J.P.Nagar, 5th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.
(By Sri.Pramod Harakuni, Advocate for Sri.Jeevan Kumar B.S., Advocate) AND:
1. Shilpa D.V., Wife of Sunil Kumar N., D/o N.Venkatesh Murthy, Aged about 27 years, 2. Tanmayee, D/o Sunil Kumar N., Aged about 3 years, Minor, .... Petitioner Represented by her mother & Natural Guardian, Shilpa D.V., Both residents of No.7, Ward No.6, Dibbur Post, Tumkur Ctiy – 578 106. Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 17th day of August 2019 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkuru, on I.A.No.II filed under Section 125(2) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.47/2019 granting interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondents from the date of the application till disposal of the above Crl.Misc.No.47/2019 filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide Annexure – E and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The aggrieved husband filed the present writ petition against the order dated 17.08.2019 made in Criminal Misc.No.47/2019 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, awarding interim monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to both the wife and the daughter from the date of petition till disposal of the petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner-husband that the petitioner and respondent No.1-wife’s marriage was solemnized and out of their wedlock, a female child was born. The respondent No.1 never lived happily with the petitioner and never wanted to do household work. She wanted to lead luxury life. Though the petitioner spent lot of money for conveyance, the respondent No.1 used to go on a bike with a boy and ultimately in the month of November 2017, the respondent No.1 left the matrimonial house and never look back to the petitioner until today. The things stood thus. The respondent No.1 filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.47/2019 for permanent maintenance and also I.A.No.II under Section 125(2) of Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance. The petitioner filed objections to the petition and the application as well. The Family Court considering the application and the objections, by the impugned order dated 17.08.2019, awarded an interim monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to both the wife and the daughter of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
4. Sri Jeevan Kumar B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court, awarding an interim monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the wife and the child is erroneous and contrary to material on record. He would further contend that the respondent No.1 is also earning. Therefore, there is no need to pay any maintenance to her. He further contended that when the respondent No.1 is capable of maintaining herself and her daughter respondent No.2, question of granting monthly interim maintenance as contemplated under Section 125(2) of Cr.P.C. would not arise. He would further contend that respondent No.1 left the matrimonial house without there being any cause and she also getting an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as interest on F.D. deposit of Rs.6,50,000/- in the Bank. Therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Hence, he sought to allow the present writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an undisputed fact that the respondents filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.47/2019 under Section 125 of Cr.PC for permanent maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- in favour of her minor female child for their day to day livelihood. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents filed an application for interim maintenance. The family Court considering the application and the objection, awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly interim maintenance to both the wife and the daughter.
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.1 is also earning and she is not entitled for any maintenance, as could be seen from ‘Annexure-H’ copy of provident fund contribution of respondent No.1 produced by the petitioner, wherein, the date of joining to EPF is shown as 01.03.2018 and the date of exit as 21.01.2019, admittedly, the petition for permanent maintenance and the interim maintenance came to be filed on 02.03.2019. Thus, as on the date of the application filed, the respondent No.1 was not working.
7. The Family Court considering the entire material on record, had recorded the finding that ‘the counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not working and she has no income to maintain herself, in this, he produced a copy of letter issued by M/s WIZTOONZ Pvt. Ltd. to show that petitioner No.1 had worked from 07.03.2018 to 21.01.2019 as admission officer, the letter not shows even now she is working in the company, further the petitioners have produced one photo of the house stating that house belongs to the respondent at Bengaluru, only on the basis of photo, Court cannot come to the conclusion respondent has house at Bengaluru.’ 8. The petitioner has not produced any material document to prove as on the date of the application, the respondent No.1 was earning and therefore, she is not entitled for the interim maintenance.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.20,000-25,000/- per month. Considering the income of the petitioner, granting of a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.1-wife and a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the child, in total Rs.6,000/- per month, exercising the power under Section 125(2) of Cr.PC by the family Court is justifiable. The relationship between the parties as husband, wife and children is not disputed.
10. In view of the admitted fact, the petitioner is bound to maintain his wife and child as contemplated under Section 125(a) and (b) of Cr.P.C. My view is forfeited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 at para 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 destitute, 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.”
11. In view of the above, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court, exercising the power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
PN/-
Sd/- JUDGE