IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) If the wife is unable to maintain herself and if she satisfies other requirements of the section names a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, the petition by the wife for maintenance cannot be rejected merely on the footing that a wife is capable of earning for herself.
(2) Though obligation of the father to maintain a daughter until her marriage is recognised under Section 20 read with Section 21 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, said legal right cannot be enforced by the daughter in the present petition. Being a major she could not have maintained a petition against her father under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

Rathnakala, J.—This revision petition is filed availing the order dated 2.4.2013 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gulbarga on his file Cri Misc. No. 50 of 2012 in allowing the petition in part, filed by the respondent herein under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. By the impugned order the Court below has directed the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000 to the first respondent during her lifetime, Rs. 10,000 per month to the second respondent till her marriage, Rs. 20,000 per month to the third respondent till he attains majority.

2. The fact is the revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second and third respondents. The wife and children filed petition for maintenance in the Court below, their allegation was the first petitioner and the respondent are married for about 22 years. Sometime after the marriage, the husband started ill-treating the wife and he was addicted to alcohol. Since the husband was working in Abudabi as an Engineer, the family resided at UAE. The wife being a MBBS graduate wanted to pursue her further education and came over to India, meanwhile she sustained leg fracture and she could not return to her matrimonial home at U.A.E. Then the husband wanted to divorce her. However, by obtaining fresh visa, the wife returned to Bahrain. The second petitioner was prosecuting her study at Pune, during June 2010. The husband declared that he resigned his job. The couple returned to India. When the wife had come to Gulbarga to her parents house, during October 2010, the husband without informing the wife vacated the rented house at Pune and carried away all her testimonials. His whereabouts could not be traced. Hence, the wife had to file a missing complaint during September 2011 at Pune Police Station. She received notice of a divorce petition on 13.10.2011 from Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udagir, Maharashtra instituted by her husband. The wife has no independent income of her own. She has to maintain the petitioners 2 and 3 and bear their educational expenses, medical expenses etc. The husband has monthly income of Rs. 1,20,000 and rental income of Rs. 7,00,000 per annum and also he has agricultural income. He owns flats, commercial shops in Maharashtra State and own house and two residential sites at Bangalore.

3. The husband contested the petition. Though, he admitted his relationship with the petitioners, his counter allegation was it was wife who was frequenting India and allegations made by her in the petition are false. She wanted to breakdown the marriage. Between October 2008 to March 2009 she demanded divorce repeatedly four times and finally ran away from the matrimonial house on 23.3.2009. She is a highly qualified woman. She has deserted her husband and children.

4. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence and on hearing both Counsels allowed the petition and directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000 to the first petitioner, Rs. 10,000 to the second petitioner until she gets married and Rs. 20,000 to the third petitioner until he attains majority.

5. Sri Kalyani Biradar, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/husband submits that the impugned order is passed on assumption and presumption: the wife though highly qualified is adamantly refusing to utilize the said qualification and to engage herself in her profession. Though the Trial Judge has taken note of the fact that the wife does not have residential address in Gulbarga, he did not dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. There was material on record that the husband had made Fixed Deposit in the name of the second respondent, still the learned Judge has recorded a finding that the husband neglected the family members. It was the wife who deserted the revision petitioner but not vice versa. She is earning interest from the Fixed Deposits made in her name by her father.

6. Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, learned Counsel for the resp