The present revision petition by the husband

assailing

the

order

dated

24.09.2018,

in

Crl.Misc.No.19/2017 on the file of I Addl. Prl. Judge,

Family Court Vijayapur, whereby, the petition filed by the

respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) was partly allowed granting

maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife by

deducting the maintenance ordered in M.C.No.56/2016

and directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.1,000/-

each to the children – petitioner Nos.3 and 4.

The parties herein are referred to, as per their

ranking before the trial Court.

- 3 -

The relevant facts necessary for consideration

of the present petition are that the marriage between

petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on

06.05.2009 as per the customs prevailing in their

community and the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children

from the wedlock. The petitioner instituted petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/-

per month to petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.10,000/- each to

petitioner Nos.2 to 4.

The petition was resisted by the respondent-

husband, inter alia, contending that the petitioner No.1

has left the matrimonial home without any reasonable

cause and the petitioner No.1 is not entitled for any

maintenance. It is the specific case of the respondent that

inspite of several efforts to get back the wife, she has

refused to join the matrimonial home on one pretext or

the other and in view of there being no reasonable cause

for her staying separately, the petitioner No.1-wife is not

- 4 -

entitled for any maintenance and sought for dismissal of

the petition.

5.

The Family Court, on the basis of the pleadings,

framed the following:

“ISSUES

(1)

Whether the petitioners prove that the

respondent has willfully neglected to maintain

them?

(2)

Whether the petitioners are entitled for the

relief of maintenance. If so, what amount?

6.

In order to substantiate their claim, petitioner

No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and one witness as

PW.2 and got marked eight documents at Exs.P-1 to P-8.

On the other hand, respondent got examined himself as

RW.1 and another witness as RW.2 and got marked 12

documents.

7.

The Family Court, by the impugned order partly

allowed the petition. The husband is before this Court

being aggrieved by the award of maintenance.

- 5 -

8.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondents.

9.

The sole contention of the husband is that the

wife is not entitled for any maintenance since the wife has

left the company of husband without any reasonable cause

and in light of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the reasons assigned

by the Family Court is not acceptable. Hence, he sought

for allowing the revision petition and to set aside the order

passed in the Crl.Misc.No.19/2007.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

wife justified the order passed by the Family Court and

contended that the Family Court, based on the material

placed on record and the income of the husband, has

rightly awarded the maintenance as stated in the order.

11. This Court has carefully considered the rival

contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the material on record.

- 6 -

12. The undisputed facts are that, the petitioner

and the respondent are husband and wife and from the

said wedlock, there are three children. It is also not in

dispute that the elder son namely, Prashant is staying

along with the husband. It is also relevant to note that

M.C.No.56/2016 (Ex.P-1) filed for restitution of conjugal

rights is pending consideration.

13. The facts as stated in the petition reveal that,

petitioner No.1-wife is staying in her parental house along

with her two children in view of the harassment by her

husband. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated with the

evidence of PW.2. It appears that there several instances

of harassment as stated by the witness PW.2 as well as

PW.1. On the other hand, respondent-husband contended

th