Point of law: Maintenance – Adultery - When piea of adultery is taken it is a serious defence of the respondent. If he failed to prove that particular aspect, then it amounts to character assassination of wife and consequently nothing is required to be proved by his wife with reference to neglect or refusal to maintain her

ORDER :

The respondents herein had instituted a case in Crl.Misc.204/2014 against the present petitioner in the Family Court at Davanagere(for brevity, the ‘Family Court’) under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per month payable to them by the respondent therein.

2. The summary of the case of the petitioners in the Family Court was that the first petitioner was the legally wedded wife of the respondent having married to the respondent about twenty years back according to the customs and traditions prevailing in their community. Out of the wedlock, three sons namely Madhusudhan, Manoj and Sandeep (petitioner No.2 in the Family Court) were born to them. The first two sons namely Madhusudhan and Manoj are residing with the respondent. The third son Sandeep (petitioner No.2) is under the care and custody of petitioner No.1 and he is pursuing his studies. Only for about two years of their marriage, petitioner No.1 could be able to lead a happy married life with the respondent. Thereafter the respondent/husband started assaulting petitioner No.1 under intoxication and also suspecting her chastity. He was also demanding dowry from her parents. The conciliation efforts made did not yield any result. About two years prior to the date of filing of the petition, the respondent after assaulting the first petitioner took out all the household utensils and gold ornaments and left them. He refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent is the only son to his parents and owns four acres of agricultural land and earns about Four to Five Lakh Rupees per annum. Stating that they are unable to maintain by themselves, the petitioners prayed for an order of maintenance payable to them by the respondent.

3. In response to the notice, the respondent in the Family Court (petitioner herein) appeared through his counsel and filed his statement of objections wherein he denied that he has ill-treated and harassed the first petitioner. He admitted that the first petitioner was his legally wedded wife and stated that she is the daughter of his sister. He further stated that his wife (petitioner No.1) did not wanted to reside in the village and pressurised him to shift the residence to Bengaluru to enable her to work in a garment factory there. Since he refused to meet her demand, she left her matrimonial home and started residing in her parental house to work in a garment factory. He further alleged that while working in the garment factory she developed illicit relationship with some other person. She did not yield to the advice made to her to discontinue the alleged illicit relationship. He contended that the first petitioner is now residing with one Mallikarjuna, son of Chandrahas of Jali nagara, Davanagere. He also stated that the first petitioner has caused a notice on 25.03.2013 for dissolution of marriage. He has stated that he has also filed a petition before the Superintendent of Police, Davanagere seeking protection from the first petitioner and said Mallikarjuna. He further stated that the first petitioner is running finance business and also doing tailoring work and earns not less than fifteen to twenty thousand Rupees per month, as such, she is capable to maintain herself and also to maintain petitioner No.2.

4. In support of her case, petitioner No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents from Exs.P1, P2 and P3. The respondent got himself examined as R.W.1 and got examined two more witnesses Smt. Gangamma and Sri B.M. Ramaswamy as R.W.2 and R.W.3 respectively and got marked exhibits R1 to R3. After hearing both side, the Family Court by its Order dated 28.03.2015 partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioners and ordered that the first petitioner before it was entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/-and the second petitioner was entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.800/-, pa