Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Aravind Kumar, J.
P. Suresh - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. S. Deepa and others - Respondent
R.P.F.C. No. 42 of 2013 C/W R.P.F.C. No. 14 of 2013
Decided On : 05-04-2016
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 41, Rule 27 - Protection Of Women Domestic Act - Challenge- Marriage between came to be solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community at Tamil Nadu - Out of said wedlock a son was bom who has been named as Srinath and he is second petitioner in - It was alleged by first petitioner that respondent husband is a drunkard and he was neglecting ill treating humiliating and harassing her and she has been made to starve without food and she was fed up with inhumane attitude of her husband - "Whether petitioners prove that they have justifiable reason to reside separately from respondent? - Whether petitioners are entitled for grant of maintenance of per month and towards litigation expenses? - Whether Family Court was justified in awarding maintenance of per month to second petitioner-son? if not what is maintenance which he would be entitled to? - Whether Family Court was justified in rejecting claim of first petitioner for maintenance being awarded to her? - Held, Court has taken note of fact that wife has approached jurisdictional Magistrate under provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in wherein an interim maintenance of per month is awarded as one of main grounds to reject her claim - Further Family Court has noticed that plea in petition filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C.is to effect that she is without any source of income has clearly admitted in her cross-examination that she is an income tax assessee and she was working with Shobha Developers and earning a salary of per month and it was being credited directly to her savings Bank Account at Axis Bank Wilson Garden and yet she did not produce her Bank statements or substantiate her claim with regard to giving up her employment by tendering resignation - This Court in normal circumstances could have considered said application but for affidavit filed by husband contending that she has since been working in a different firm known and called as "Dimensions Projects and Services Limited - Perusal of averments made in affidavit filed by husband would indicate that he has been asserting that his wife is gainfully employed and even as she was employed in said Firm "Dimensions Projects and Services Limited and yet in cross-examination in she has stated that she is unemployed and hence he has contended that she has been stating falsehood before Court - Neither of parties have proved contents of documents produced before this Court - It is an assertion of oath against oath - As such if any exercise undertaken by this Court to examine correctness or otherwise of contents of documents produced by parties without oral evidence would amount to dredging on a dangerous path - In that view of matter this Court is of considered view that it would be appropriate to relegate parties back to Family Court on issue of first petitioners claim for maintenance being adjudicated afresh in light of both parties producing documents to buttress their respective contentions - Petition Restored
Aravind Kumar, J.
These two petitions have been filed by wife as well as husband questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 23-11-2012 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in C. Mis. No. 14/2009 where under petition filed by wife under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.') claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance and expenses for herself and for her minor son, together with a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards litigation expenses came to be adjudicated by Family Court and said petition has been partly allowed directing the husband to pay her maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to second petitioner (son) from the date of order till he attains the age of majority with Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses and rejecting the claim of first petitioner for maintenance. Aggrieved by rejection of the claim made, wife has filed RPFC No. 14/2013 and husband has preferred RPFC No. 42/2013 being aggrieved by award of maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- to the second petitioner - son as being highly excessive.
2. Since common arguments are advanced and issue involved in both the petitions being one and the same, both are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
3. The discordant note between husband and wife which has derailed their marriage has resulted in various litigation arising between them and the present two petitions are the offshoot of such dispute between husband and wife.
4. Facts in brief which has led to filing of these two petitions can be crystallised as under:
Marriage between Sri. Suresh and Smt. Deepa came to be solemnized on 26-1-2000 as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community at Tamil Nadu. Out of the said wedlock, a son was bom who has been named as Srinath and he is the second petitioner in C. Mis. No. 14/2009. It was alleged by first petitioner that respondent husband is a drunkard and he was neglecting, ill treating, humiliating and harassing her and she has been made to starve without food and she was fed up with the inhumane attitude of her husband. It was also contended that respondent husband was given dowry by way of cash and articles and on account of continued ill treatment and harassment and being unable to meet his demand for additional dowry and physical and mental torture, she lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police and on being thrown out from her matrimonial home, she is living with her parents and the petition for divorce filed by respondent husband is being prosecuted by her and on account of she being unable to maintain herself and her son and respondent being gainfully employed in System Development at Tata Elxsi Limited and getting a salary of more than Rs. 1 lakh per month, she is entitled for maintenance as sought for. As such, she has prayed for award of maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for herself and her son.
5. On service of summons, respondent appeared and filed statement of objections denying averments made in the petition except admitting the marriage and birth of a son. It has been contended that they had stayed together at a rented house till October, 2005 and thereafter she has deserted the petitioner on being caught red handed by him while he found her in a compromising position with another person. It was also contended that she hated the petitioner and she was in love with another person and she was forced to marry him on account of pressure of her parents. It was also contended that it was the petitioner wife who was in the habit of consuming alcohol and the alleged demand of dowry was denied as false. It was admitted by the respondent husband that he was working as a System Development Officer at Tata Elxsi and all other averments made by the wife regarding physical assault, demand for dowry, ill treatment came to be denied in to. It was specifically contended by the husband that first petitioner is highly educated; she is a civil engineer from Regional Engineering Co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
