The court ruled that maintenance must reflect the recipient's needs and the payer's capacity, enhancing the amount to Rs.19,000/- based on the petitioner's medical requirements.

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No.161/2017.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition are as under:

- The petitioner and the respondent got married on 01.05.2014 as per the customs prevailing in the community. The petitioner and the respondent led a happy married life. The respondent and his family members started ill-treating the petitioner, and the respondent drove the petitioner out of the house. The petitioner is residing separately. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking for maintenance in Crl.Misc.161/2017. Hence prays to allow the petition.

3. The respondent filed objections contending that the petitioner is having serious health problems, and the respondent had taken her to Leela Hospital, Bengaluru and came to know that the petitioner is suffering from gynaecological issues which cannot be cured and she cannot conceive. It is contended that the respondent has taken maximum care of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has filed false criminal case before the police against the respondent and his family members.

Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

4. The petitioner to prove her case examined herself as PW1, and marked three documents as Exs.P.1 to P.3. In rebuttal, the respondent was examined as RW1, and no documents were marked. The Family Court after recording the evidence, considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition-in-part with cost and directed the respondent to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner towards her maintenance from the date of petition.

5. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, filed this revision petition for enhancement.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maintenance amount awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. He submits that the respondent is drawing salary of more than Rs.50,000/-, and that the respondent has not made any arrangement for accommodation to the petitioner. Hence, he submits that the revision petition may be allowed and the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court be enhanced.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order, and submits that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is just and proper, and does not call for any interference. She further submits that the petitioner has suppressed that she was suffering from cist and uterus fibroid. Hence, the petitioner has played fraud on respondent at the time of marriage. Hence, she submits that the respondent has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage which is pending. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

10. The point that arise for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to enhance the maintenance amount”?

11. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the petitioner and respondent as husband and wife, and it is also not in dispute that the respondent had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and the said petition was allowed. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed in Matrimonial Case, has preferred an MFA which is pending for consideration before this Court. Further, it is the case of the respondent that the respondent is taking care of the petitioner and paying the maintenance amount. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing separately, and to prove that the respondent is having the capacity to pay the maintenance amount, learned counsel for the respon