IMPORTANT POINT
Courts while awarding maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. have to consider earning capacity of husband and his status in society.

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