A husband's obligation to provide maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act persists even after a compromise regarding property, if he neglects his duty.

JUDGMENT :

JAYANT BANERJI, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed seeking the following relief.

“WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 14.02.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.126/2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, at Davanagere, petition filed by the respondents u/s 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act be rejected and this appeal be allowed with costs throughout.”

3. The impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Davanagere on 14.02.2018 has been passed on an application moved under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Act by the petitioners - respondents. The aforesaid petition under of the Act was partly allowed with cost of Rs.1,000/- directing that the petitioners - respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each per month from the date of the petition. Petitioner - Respondent No. 1 is the wife and the petitioner - respondent No.2 is the daughter of the appellant. The case of the petitioners - respondents in their petition under of the Act was that the petitioner No.1 came to know that the appellant had secretly entered into a marriage with another lady during the continuance of their marriage. The petitioners were forced to stay separately and had approached the Family Court, Davanagere and filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.144/2004. The petition was contested and came to be allowed on 29.10.2004 granting maintenance to the petitioners - respondents at the rate of Rs.700/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.500/- to petitioner No.2. Since the order was not complied with, a petition was filed seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance from the appellant in Crl.Misc. No.136/2005 in the Family Court, Davanagere. The respondent appeared before the Court, but being unable to pay the arrears of maintenance to the petitioners - respondents agreed to execute a release deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of land bearing Sy.No.13/1A of Chikkalaghatta Village, Hireguntanur Hobli, Chitradurga District and accordingly, the appellant executed the release deed in favour of petitioner No.1 on 22.10.2005. In view of the aforesaid, a compromise was entered into between the parties and as such, on 25.10.2005, the case was closed.

4. It was further stated that petitioner No.2 completed her post graduation in Agricultural Economics. Petitioner No.1 availed loans from relatives and friends in order to pay the fees and hostel accommodation of petitioner No.2. The appellant being the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner No.2 failed to discharge his legitimate duties and to take care of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It was further stated that the land in respect of which a release deed was executed by the appellant having an area of 1 acre 35 guntas is barren land and not irrigated but dependent on monsoons and crops such as ragi and maize grown on the said lands. It was stated that the yields are not so much, so as to maintain the petitioners’ daily needs and expenses and more particularly for pursuing the higher education of petitioner No.2. It was alleged that the respondent has agricultural lands and sufficient means and earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore, maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of petitioner No.1 and Rs.20,000/- per month in favour of petitioner No.2 was claimed.

5. Objections were filed by the appellant stating that a compromise petition wa