Bhirnesh v. Smt. Vanitha © Rekha Laxmibai

Smt. Vanitha © Rekha Laxmibai W/o Bhirnesh. Age: 23 years, 0cc: Household, R/o Hutkur Village, Tq: Gadwal and. Mahaboob Nagar (A.P.). Respondent This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act praying to allow the above Revision Petition and set-aside the order dated 09-08-20 10 passed by the Family Court Judge at Raihcur in Cr1. Misc. No. 96/20 10, in the interest of justice and equity. This RPFC coming on for orders, this day the Court made the Following: ORDER This is a husband’s revision petition challenging the order passed by the Family Court awarding a maintenance of Rs.2,000/ per month to the wife.

#2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the Criminal Petition.

#3. Petitioner-Smt. Vanitha © Rekha married the respondent Bhimesh on 10.2.2008 at Katlatkur Village. Raichur Tahik and District. After the marriage they led a happy married life. Thereafter, respondent started suspecting the fidelity of the petitioner gave mental physical harassment. Panchyaths were conducted to resolve the dispute. In the Panchavath the parents of the respondent picked up a quarrel and caused grievance injuries to him. He lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police on 3.4.20 10. Thereafter he has 3 It is her case that thrown out the respondent from his house. he is a UC agent earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He is also earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. doing Kirana business Therefore, he is earning a sum of Rs.20.000/- per month. as such she is endUed to a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month.

#4. After service of notice. the respondent entered appearance and flied his counter. He denied all the allegations. He also accused her of filing a false case under Section 498(A) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He admitted that he is working as a UC Agency. He denied he is earning a sum of Rs.20.000/- per month. He contended that there is absolutely no basis for claiming maintenance of Rs.8,000/-. Petitioner is guilty of desertion and therefore he is not liable to maintain her. A conciliation was attempted to but it did not yield any result

#5. Petitioner examined herself as PWI and examined one Shankarayachar as PW2. She produced two documents which were marked as Exs. P1 and P2. Defendant examined himse 4 as RW1 and he produced as many as 10 documents which were marked as Exs. Ri to RiO.

#6. The trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record though did not believe the case of the petitioner that the respondent is having an income of Rs.20,000/- per month, took his income at Rs. 5,000/- per month and awarded Rs.2,000/- per month as compensation to the wife. Aggrieved by the said order. the respondent has preferred this revision petition.

#7. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contended that the evidence on record shows the income from the LIC business is Rs. 13,000/- per annum and not per month. The trial Court committed a serious error in construing the income as per month and ultimately awarding Rs.2.000/- per month as maintenance to the wife.

#8. From the aforesaid material on record it is clear that. the marriage between the parties is not in dispute. Petitioner is now not living with the respondent. Respondent has lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police against the petitioner and her parents for assaulting him. Now. the petitioner in turn has filed a Criminal case under the Dowry Prohibition Act which is also pending. It is on record that, after the marriage they lived together happily for some time. In is only when the respondent started doubting the fidelity of the petitioner. trouble has started. Panchayati has failed, Respondent has not said that he is ready and willing to take her back. On the contrar he is accusing her of deserting and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. It is the specific case of the petitioner. after the respondent lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police against her and her parents, he kicked her out from the house. which is more probable. Under these circumstances. though the petitioner is living separately, she cannot be blamed. The crse for separation is the husband. In that view of the matter, he is bound to maintain his wife. The amount awarded is hardly Rs.2.000/- which is the minimum amount required for maintenance. Though the earning, salary, is a factor to be taken note of b the Courts while granting maintenance, that is not the sole criteria. If the husband is an able bodied person, capable of earning, he is bound to maintain his wife. Viewed 6 from that angle. the award of Rs.2,000/- awarded to the wife is reasonable and Just.. No case for Interference is made out Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. 1 ckl/