The main legal point established is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife, even after divorce, and the importance of providing an opportunity for the husband to present his case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Though this matter is posted today for Admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts circumstances of the case the same is taken up for final disposal. The present petition filed under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, is directed against the order passed in Crl. Mis.No.179/2013 on 28/12/2013, by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur, wherein the petition filed by petitioner-wife-Channakrishnamma, respondent herein came to be allowed and the respondent-husband T. Sudhakar was ordered to pay a maintenance of Rs.4,000.00 per month from the date of the said order till her life time. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has presented this revision petition.

2. In order to avoid confusion, the parties are addressed with reference to their status before the Family Court and their relationship in the Family Court.

3. The substance of the entire case is that, Channakrishnamma, (respondent under this petition) is the legally wedded wife of T.Sudhakar, husband (petitioner under this petition) and their marriage was solemnized on 22/5/2003 at Yelahanka as per the rights and customs of Hindu religion. At the time of marriage, parents of the wife have given cash of Rs.1,50,000.00 watch, ring and one gold chain to the respondent-husband. After the marriage, their marital life was cordial for four years and thereafter, respondent-husband has addicted to alcohol and also suspected the character of his wife. The hopes of petitioner- wife/ revision respondent went in vain as respondent-husband did not get reformed and she was driven out of the house and she had to take shelter in the house of her brother. It is further complained that the respondent-husband is working as Operator in Wheel and i.e., Plant of Railways and drawing the salary of Rs.30,000.00 per month and also getting rent of Rs.10,000.00 per month from the house let out at Yelahanka and having sufficient income to maintain her. Thus, petitioner-wife claims that she was neglected by respondent-husband to maintain her despite she was not having means to maintain herself.

4. Respondent- husband- T. Sudhakar did not appear before the Family Court despite issuance of summons. In this connection, respondent-husband claims that the Family Court has passed the order without issuing notice.

5. The Family judge was accommodated with the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P4, namely Exs.P1 and 2 -Wedding card and its Kannada translation, Ex.P3-Voters list and Ex.P4-Photo.

6. The learned Family judge considering the absence of the husband and his employment in the Wheel and Axle Plant at Yalahanka and considering the relationship and allegations and averments made by the petitioner-wife and after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on file on behalf of wife, allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent-husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000.00 to the petitioner-wife till her life time from the date of the said order. The same is challenged in this petition by husband claiming that his father is dead and mother is very sick and requires constant and immediate care and medical attendant and petitioner-wife is not justified in claiming maintenance.

7. Learned counsel Shri. Rajesh appearing for respondent-husband submits that petitioner-wife is adamant and has not discharged duties of a wife. It is further submitted that husband has never misbehaved or harassed his wife and it is she who is guilty of desertion of the husband. It was further submitted that husband was disappointed and frustrated because of the conclusion of the trial court in granting maintenance.

8. Insofar as petitioner-wife Channakrishnamma respondent herein is concerned, notice was served through paper publication, she remained absent and service of notice to her is held sufficient by order dtd. 7/11/2017.

9. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the following points are amply clear:

The marital