Sri.Maqbool

Ahmed.,

learned

counsel

on

behalf

of

Sri.K.L.Patil., for the petitioner and Sri.Ganesh Raibagi., learned

counsel for the respondent have appeared through video

conferencing.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family

Court.

The order dated the 20^th day of April 2019, passed by the

Addl.

Principal

Family

Court,

Gadag

in

Criminal

Misc.

No.202/2018 is called into question in this revision petition

whereby, the learned Judge allowed the petition in part filed

under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed

the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand only) to the petitioner - wife. This order

3

is called in question on various grounds as set out in the

Memorandum of Revision Petition.

3.

Learned counsel Sri.Maqbool Ahamed., submits that

the order of the Family Court suffers from serious infirmities and

the same is liable to be set aside. He submitted that the Family

Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on

record.

Next, he submits that the Family Court erred in awarding

monthly maintenance.

A further submission is made that the Family Court has

failed to appreciate the material evidence on record in a right

perspective.

Learned counsel submits that the sons have an obligation

to maintain the parents.

Learned

counsel

vehemently

contended

that

the

respondent - husband is staying in a house allotted in the Janata

Scheme and he does not own any fertile agricultural lands. It has

4

been specifically contended that the respondent-husband is aged

78 years and he is suffering from paralysis and he requires an

amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to Rs.6,000/-

(Rupees Six Thousand only) per month for his treatment. Hence,

he is unable to pay maintenance as ordered by the Family Court.

Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order

of the Family Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he

prayed that the Revision Petition may be allowed.

4.

Sri.Ganesh Raibagi., learned counsel justified the

order passed by the Family Court.

Next, he submitted that the petitioner - wife is entirely

dependent upon her husband and she needs financial assistance

from her husband.

A further submission is made that there are landed

properties standing in the name of husband. The learned Judge

has referred to the material on record and has rightly concluded

that the husband has sufficient means and accordingly directed

the husband to pay the maintenance.

5

Lastly, he submitted that the order passed by the Family

Court does not require any interference by this Court and prayed

for the dismissal of the Revision Petition.

5.

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the

respective parties and perused the order and the records with

care.

6.

The simple question which requires consideration is:

Whether the learned Judge is justified in directing

the respondent - husband to pay a monthly

allowance to the petitioner - wife and whether the

order of the Family Court requires any interference?

It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondents are

husband and wife. They are blessed with three children. It is also

not in dispute that they lived blissfully for some time. Due to

differences of opinion and misunderstanding, the petitioner was

constrained to live apart from the respondent. Contending that

her husband is having sufficient means, willfully neglected, and

6

refused to maintain her, the petitioner sought the aid of the

Court seeking maintenance.

To substantiate their claim, the petitioner was examined as

PW1. She stated that she was inflicted with domestic violence.

Hence, she was constrained to live separately. She has stated

that she is a household lady and has no source of income of her

own. She is unable to meet even the basic requirements of food,

shelter, clothing and medical requirements, etc., she has further

deposed that her husband owns landed properties; he g