The main legal point established in this judgment is that it is the duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, and he is required to earn money to fulfill this obligation, even through physical labor.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 18.09.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysore in C.Mis.No.319/2021.

2. Heard Sri. R. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Trivikram S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The petitioner is the husband and the respondent-wife, the two get married on 24.11.2014 and the relationship turning sore, are before the concerned Court seeking annulment of marriage.

It transpires that the respondent-wife has instituted several proceedings against the husband one being setting the criminal law in motion in Crime No.62/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Later, the respondent-wife files a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in C.Mis.No.319/2021 seeking maintenance from the hands of the husband, the petitioner. The petitioner filed his objections on 18.09.2021. The concerned Court in terms of the order impugned dated 18.09.2021 directs Rs.6,000/- maintenance to be paid to the wife and Rs.4,000/- maintenance to be paid to the child, which is born from the wedlock, who at that point in time was 2 years old.

4. This Court entertaining the petition had granted an interim order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.7,500/- as against Rs.10,000/- which would be subject to the result of the subject petition and therefore, the petitioner has paid Rs.7,500/- to the wife from the date of the interim order.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to pay any maintenance to the wife as he is himself suffering from several ailments and is not earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month for him to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and the child. He would submit that with great difficulty, the arrears according to him have been cleared as on date.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner has landed properties and those are looked into by the concerned Court by directing payment of paltry sum of Rs.6,000/- to the wife and Rs.4,000/- to the child, who was then 2 years old and he is now 4 years old and would submit that the petitioner is still in arrears of payment of maintenance as what he is paid is Rs.7,500/- from the date of the interim order and not any payment from the date of the impugned order.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Several proceedings instituted by the wife against the husband is again not in dispute. The wife files a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and the child born out of the wedlock. The concerned Court after considering the averments made in the petition and the objections, awards maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the wife and Rs.4,000/- to the child as an interim measure.

9. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he is not in a position to even pay Rs.10,000/- maintenance sans countenance, as the petitioner who is an able-bodied man has to take care of the wife and the child, if he has no avocation, by finding an avocation. The amount Rs.6,000/- and Rs.4,000/- to the wife and the child is not so exorbitant for the petitioner has to wash off his responsibility of taking care of the wife and his child. The submission that he is himself suffering from certain liver diseases is without substance, as no document is produced to demonstrate that he is suffering from certain liver diseases, which does not permit him to work at all.

10. Even the document that is now handed over in the Court with regard to diagnosis of chronic liver disease would n