SRI. KUMAR 5/0 FAKKIRAPPA ARALIKATI’I v. SMT. POOJA W/0 KUMAR ARALIKAYI

B Sri M U NAGANURJ, ADV) PETITIONER This RFFC coming on for adrn ission, this day, the Court 2 ORDER This petition by the respondent arises out of the impugned order dated 8/6/2011 passed in Crl.Misc. No.467/2009 on the• fIle of the Family Court, Belgaum, wherein the respondent filed application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. The same is allowed and a sum of Rs.2.000/-p.m. as maintenance is awarded In favour of respondent from the date of filing of the petition i.e. from 8/9/2009 during her life time. Since the amount granted is higher, the petitioner has presented this petition.

2. The undisputed facts of the case on hand are, the petitioner is the husband married to the respondent on 10/6/2005 at Sarswati Niketan, Dharwad as per the rituals and customs prevailing in their community. Soon after the marriage the petitioner joined the company of the respondent to lead the marital life and stayed with him totally for a period of two years. •They lived together happily till the death of 3 petitioneis father. Thereafter, the petitioner, his mother, uncle and aunt started picking up quarrel with the respondent herein and pestering her to bring gold and money from her parents. The respondent told them that her parents have already spent a lot of money at the time of her marriage. When she has failed to bring the gold and money, they started to ill-treat the respondent by many ways. She was not provided food and medicines and other essential necessities. On contrary the petitioner sent a notice with false allegations stating that the respondent has left the house with the golden ornaments and cash of Rs .40,000/- and also utensils without Informing the petitioner. Meanwhile, the respondent-wife had replied to the said notice through the counsel. Thereafter, the respondent had also filed a Private Complaint In PC No.678/2008 before the IV-J.M.F.C., Court, Belgaum, against the petitioner, his mother, uncle and aunt for the offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 nw Section 34 of IPC. She does not have any source of income and she Is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, she ified application under 4 SectIon 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month contending that the petitioner Is a businessman and he Is a dealer In cement. He owns lands at Uppina Betagerl and two houses at Sanmati Nagar, Kelgeri Road, Dharwad. One house has been let out and he Is getting sufficient income from his agriculture and rent. He has got monthly income of Rs.50,000/- and he is capable to pay maintenance to the respondent and the said case has been registered in Crl.Mlsc.No.467/2009 and upon service of notice, he appeared through the counsel and filed his objection admitting the relationship between the petitioner and respondent. They lived together happily for a period of 2 years but he has denied the allegations that after the death of his father, himself, his mother, uncle and aunt started picking up quarrels with respondent and ill-treated her by demanding money and gold from her parents and further he submitted that he did not have any source of Income for his livelihood, he is Just working in the cement shop and getting income of Rs.50/- per day. It is very difficult for him to ‘4—-- 5 maintain himself, his mother and other family members. He Is not capable of paying separate maintenance to the respondent. Therefore the claim made by the respondent Is highly exorbitant and the petition Is liable to be dismissed.

3. Respondent got examined herself as PW1 and has got marked three documents. Thereafter the petitioner got examined as RW- 1 and has examined one witness as RW-2 and got marked four documents. After hearing both the sides, the Court below framed necessary points consideration which are as follows: I) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent being her husband has refused or neglected to maintain her, who Is unable to maintain herself? il) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent is having sufficient means/Income to provide maintenance to her? Ill) Whether the petitioner Is entitled for maintenance from the respondent and if so. at what sum? lv) What order? 6

4. After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and other material on ifie the Court below has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of petition during her lifetime. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded, on the ground that It exorbitant and is liable to be reduced, the petitioner has presented this petition seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the Intention of the respondent is to give divorce to the petitioner. She does not want to continue her marital life with the petitioner and the claim made by the respondent, that there are two houses in Dharwad and landed property In Uppina Betagerl Is a presumption and assumption without any documentary evidence. The maintenance of Rs.2,000/- awarded is in the higher side as he does not have any source of Income to pay the said amount. Therefore, he submitted that the Impugned order 7 passed by the Court below is liable to be modified reducing substantially having regard to his age, occupation arid status and source of income.

6. Per contra. learned counsel appearing for respondent Lriteraha contended and substantiated that the impugned order passed by the Court below is just and proper and is passed after due consideration of the relevant material on file and avocation and age. Further he submits that the maintenance of Rs2OOO/ awarded is not sufficient and the Court below ought to have awarded at the rate of Rs5OOO[ per month instead of Rs2,OOO/ pm.. after taking into consideration escalation of prices essential commodities and other incidental expenses, Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.

7. After careful cons1deraton of the submission made by both the parties axid a.fter perusal of the impugned order pa.ssed by the Court below the only point thai. arise for consideration. jc 8 “Whether the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs,2,OOO/ per month from the date of petition during life time of the respondent is on the higher sidc’?

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent are the husband and wife and led a married life for a period of 2 years. After the death of the father of the petitioner, his mother, uncle and aunt started picking up quarrel with the respondent and pestering her to bring the gold and money from her parents. Inspite of making all sincere efforts, respondent suffered mental and physical torture. But one fine day she was compelled to leave the house due to the previous allegation made against her that she left the house aiong with the golden ornaments and cash of Rs4OOOO/. It is significant, to note that such a stand taken by the petitioner in his written statement is not proved. Ttie petitioner has no source of income except one house and another agricultural property. The statements are made on presurnpnon and assumption. Whereas the respondent has tp€ h ru ii di i dUO ! wt rro tt / is reasonable to meet the day to day necessities and that she also has to live independently with honour and dignily, along with other family members in the parental house and also society. Whereas, petitioner is a businessman having sufficient source of income and having own two houses in Sanmati Nagar and one house is let out. He is getting sufficient income from his agricultural land and rent, Taking all these facts into consideration, the Court below has rightly assigned the valid reasons in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order and determined the just and reasorìable maintenance at the rate of Rs,2,OOO/ per month. find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness or irregularity as such committed, Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case referred above, 1 do not find any good ground to interfere in the order, Hence, petition is dismissed as bei.ng devoid of merit s, I do not Sd1 JUDGE Vmb/Sbs