Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
P.G.M. Patil, J.
Sateesh Kumar Nadivi – Appellant
Versus
H S Shakti @ Adiprashakti - Respondent
Revision Petition Family Court No. 100045 of 2014
Decided On : 14-08-2019
Income Tax Act - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 24 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 125 - Decree of divorce – Demand of dowry - Whether petitioner has made out grounds that maintenance awarded by Court below is liable to be set aside or reduced - Respondent-wife filed petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from revision petitioner-husband - It is case of petitioner-wife before the family Court that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was performed - After marriage they lived happily for a period months - Her parents had given cash for purchasing of dress materials of silver articles and grams of gold jewels as dowry – Thereafter she went to her parents house and then returned to her husband's house – Thereafter respondent started ill-treating her demanding additional dowry and gold jewels - He also demanded a four-wheeler - Petitioner expressed her inability to provide all these things as her parents are poor - Respondent continued to ill-treat her - Respondent drove her out of house and as such she came back of her parents' house at Bellary - Then she issued a legal notice to respondent - By that time respondent had filed petition for divorce under false grounds before family Court - Respondent willfully deserted her without any valid reasons - She is unable to maintain herself - Respondent is not paying any maintenance - Respondent is a BE Graduate in Textile - He has worked in Scotland for years and he is running a Textile business – Held, Submission made on behalf of revision petitioner that respondent wife is not entitled to seek separate maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code in view of order passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act has no merit and the same is liable to be rejected and further it is necessary to observe that order passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is in nature of interim order and it subsists till disposal of the main petition - Thereafter wife cannot seek interim maintenance in case however permanent alimony can be sought for - Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of stated supra has also observed that depending upon outcome of main case an appropriate order towards permanent maintenance and arrears also to be passed - Therefore contention of revision petitioner husband that respondent is not entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code in view of order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is rejected - 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 the life of an animal feel like an un person to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else - She is entitled in law to lead a 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 husband in case of a wife become a prominent one - In a 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 the husband to see that wife does not become a destitute a beggar - A 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 labor if he is able bodied - There is no escape route unless there is an order from Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds - Statement made by wife in her evidence that she requires cannot be construed as maximum for her maintenance but it has to be construed as minimum for her maintenance on consideration of standard of living of the husband and his status in society that he is a BE graduate in Clothing Management at Herriot Watt University Scotland and having family business in jewels awarding maintenance to respondent wife cannot be held as excessive and beyond capacity of revision petitioner - On other hand material on record goes to show that revision petitioner has made two attempts to get decree of divorce against respondent and has also never paid maintenance awarded in those proceedings - Even after filing revision petition revision petitioner was not regular in paying the maintenance - Revision petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
P G M Patil, J.
The husband being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2014 passed in Crl.Misc.No.106/2013 by the Principal Judge Family Court, Bellary has filed this revision petition.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Family Court as petitioner and respondent.
3. The respondent-wife Smt. H. S. Shakti @ Adiprashakti filed the petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. from the revision petitioner-husband.
4. It is the case of the petitioner-wife before the family Court that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 24.06.2010. After the marriage, they lived happily for a period of 3 to 4 months. Her parents had given cash of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- for purchasing of dress materials, 2 k.g. of silver articles and 60 grams of gold jewels as dowry. Thereafter, she went to her parents house for 'Ashadha Masa' and then returned to her husband's house. Thereafter, the respondent started ill-treating her demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and gold jewels of Rs.3,00,000/-. He also demanded a four-wheeler. The petitioner expressed her inability to provide all these things, as her parents are poor. The respondent continued to illtreat her. On 08.12.2010, the respondent drove her out of the house and as such, she came back of her parents' house at Bellary. Then on 24.10.2012, she issued a legal notice to the respondent. By that time, the respondent had filed petition for divorce under false grounds in Matri.C. No.31/2011 before the family Court, Raichur. The respondent willfully deserted her without any valid reasons. She is unable to maintain herself. The respondent is not paying any maintenance. The respondent is a BE Graduate in Textile. He has worked in Scotland for 3 years and he is running a Textile business in Raichur. His family is having one jewelry shop by name Shri Guru Jewelers. He is also doing business under Sanuco Global Manufacturers and Trading Company (Textiles) at Raichur. He is also having two houses, plots and agricultural lands and he is getting income of more than Rs.3,00,000/- per month. The petitioner is in need of Rs.20,000/- p.m. towards her maintenance.
5. In response of notice, respondent-husband appeared before the Family Court and filed his objections to the main petition and has denied all the allegations made against him. However admitted the marital relationship with the petitioner. He has contended that he had gone to Scotland for higher studies and he did not do any job in Scotland for 3 years. After returning to India, he married the petitioner. She was always demanding modern dresses, jewels, cosmetics, wrist watches and other articles from Scotland, he did not agree for the same. Therefore, she went to her parents' house and never bothered to take care of him. She was not doing domestic work and she was cruel towards him and her in-laws. Since January 2011, the petitioner is taking shelter in her parents' house. She was sending threatening messages to him on mobile. Once she threatened him that she will commit suicide by making allegations against him. The petitioner herself left the matrimonial home without any valid reasons. Hence, she is not entitled to any separate maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. The petitioner-wife in support of her claim got examined herself as PW1 and got marked 22 documents at Ex.P1 to P22. The respondent got examined himself as RW1 and got examined one more witness as RW2 and got marked 6 documents at Exs.R1 to R6.
7. The learned Judge of the family Court after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order awarding maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the petitioner against the respondent from the date of the order during her life time or till she re-marries.
8. The husband being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed this revision petition on the ground that the order passed by the Court below is bad in l
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
