Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
B. VEERAPPA, J.
MAHADEVI @ MAHADEVAMMA W/O BASWANTH RAO SAPPANDI – Appellant
Vs.
BASWANTHRAO.B.SAPPANDI – Respondent
RPFC.NO.200072 of 2017
Decided on : 11-04-2018
Provision of Section 125 was conceived to ameliorate agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for reasons provided in provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. Concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead life of animal, feel like unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead life in similar manner as she would have lived in house of her husband. That is where status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of wife, become prominent one. In proceeding of this nature, husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to solemn pledge at time of marriage and also in consonance with statutory law that governs field, it is obligation of husband to see that wife does not become destitute, beggar. Situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life 'dust unto dust' . It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is sacrosanct duty to render financial support even if husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is order from Court that wife is not entitled to get maintenance from husband on any legally permissible grounds.'
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974] - Section 125(i) (a) - Maintenance to wife and daughter - Husband despite having sufficient means not giving maintenance to wife/petitioner and unmarried daughters - Plea that marriage was void due to subsistence of earlier marriage - Husband denying petitioner to be his wife, stating that he had illicit relation with her - Marriage agreement establishing that both lived together for 34 years and have 3 children - Documents on record showing that husband decided to give half share of property and pension to both wives each - Failure of husband to prove marriage as void - Petitioner, is entitled for maintenance.
The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.
2. The alleged wife and daughter/petitioners filed this revision petition against the order dated 21.07.2016 made in Crl.Misc.No.116/2013 on the file of the District Judge Family Court at Kalaburagi, awarding maintenance of Rs.2,500/per month to the petitioner No.2 from the date of petition till her marriage for enhancement and rejecting the maintenance to the petitioner No.1wife.
3. It is the case of the petitioners/wife and daughter before the Family Court that, petitioner No.1 is married with the respondent in the year 1978 and she has three children out of their wedlock by name Nagraj, Anand and Swetharani. The daughter petitioner No.2 unmarried. The respondent has contracted second marriage after about 45 years of marriage with petitioner No.1. The same came to the knowledge of petitioner No.1 only in the month of January 2012 and on enquiry she came to know that respondent is residing with second wife Chandrakala. He has not joined the company of petitioners and he has not made any arrangement for providing maintenance. It was further contend that the respondent has executed mutual agreement for payment of maintenance of Rs.3,000/per month to petitioners on 28.12.2012, but he has failed to pay the same. Therefore, legal notice was issued which was served on respondent, but respondent has not paid the maintenance amount nor replied to the notice. The petitioner No.2 is studying in II P.U. at Gulbarga. The respondent was working as Head Constable and after retirement he is drawing pension of Rs.11,000/per month. The petitioner No.1 is not earning member. Therefore, they have filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance.
4. The respondent has filed objections denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the respondent had an illicit relationship with petitioner No.1 and out of the said relationship three children by name Nagaraj, Anand and Swetharani were born. He further contended that the respondent has married to one Chandrakala in the year 1976 at Dandagunda Basaveshwar Temple, Chittapur Taluka. The said Chandrakala is the legally wedded wife and there are four issues out of the said wedlock. The respondent is residing with them and he has to take care of his wife and children. He further contended that the petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of one Basavaraj s/o Basanna Chatti resident of Rukmapur. Her marriage was performed on 17.07.1975 at Soograyya Temple Devasugur Tq: Chittapur. The petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by her, against Basavaraj in Crl.Misc.No.56/1976 before JMFC Court Shorapur, came to be withdrawn. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and Basavaraja is still subsisting. Therefore, she is not legally wedded wife of respondent. It was further contended that petitioner No.1 was harassing respondent and black mailing him and therefore the respondent for the sake of his illegitimate children, he has paid Rs.6,00,000/to them. In that regard an agreement also came to be executed in favour of the petitioner No.1. Hence, petitioner No.2 is also not entitled to any maintenance. The respondent is drawing monthly pension of Rs.11,000/only. It is only the source of income for him and his family members. The respondent is mentally depressed patient and he is under treatment with Dr.Ghanate and he is spending Rs.2,000/per month. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. In view of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Family Court framed the following points:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that in laws she is entitled to maintenance from the respondent and that respondent by having sufficient means neglected to maintain them?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to maintenance amount? If so at what rate?
3. What order?
6. In order to establish their case the petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and documents marked as Ex.P.1 and 7. The respondent examined himself as DW.1
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
