ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order on IA.No.II dated 07.06.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.202/2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkuru.

2. The brief facts filing of this appeal are as under:

The petitioner lawfully married to Respondent No.1 on 21.06.1998 and they had led a happy married life until 2012 and due to differences their marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce in MC.No.182/2015. The Respondent No.1 claiming to be the wife of the petitioner alleged her date of marriage of the petitioner on 02.06.2005 at Dharmasthala. The Respondent No.1 alleged that, she started to lead marital life at her parents house at Tumkuru and alleged that, she has given a birth to her son i.e. Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.1 alleges harassment, assault and demand of dowry and falsely claiming maintenance from the petitioner. The respondents filed petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking for the maintainence and said petition was registered as Crl.Misc No.202/2023. In the said proceedings, the Respondents filed IA.No.II seeking the interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the petitioner. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections to IA.No.II.

3. The Family Court after hearing both the sides allowed IA.No.II in part and ordered the petitioner therein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the Respondent No.1 and Rs.8,000/- to the Respondent No.2 per month from the date of application pending disposal of the petition. The petitioner aggrieved by the order on IA.No.II dated 07.06.2024 passed in Crl.Misc No.202/2023 filed this Writ Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Respondent No.1 is capable of maintaining herself and she has completed her M.A. graduation. She submits that, the Respondent No.1 has capacity to maintain herself hence, question of seeking maintenance from the petitioner would not arrive. She submits that, the petitioner is working as a Drawing Teacher in Government High School and getting a meagre salary. She submits that, the interim maintainence awarded by the family court is exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds she prays to allow the petition.

5. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are husband and wife and the respondent No.2 is the son born to petitioner and Respondent No.1. It is also not in dispute that the parties are residing separately and the petitioner has not placed any records to establish that the petitioner is paying monthly maintenance to the respondents. The petitioner contended that the respondent No.1 is the post graduate and she has got the capacity to maintain herself. The petitioner being a husband is legally bound to maintain the wife and son. Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid any maintainence to the respondents. The petitioner is working as a drawing teacher in Government High School and he has filed an affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities. In the affidavit, he has declared that his gross income is Rs.72,000/-p.m. The family court considering the income of the petitioner has awarded an interim maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- to the Respondent No.1 and Rs.8,000/- to the Respondent No.2. Further, the petitioner has not produced any records to show that the respondent No.1 is employed. In the absence of records, the family court was justified in passing the interim order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent No.1 has obtained MA graduation and she is capable of maintaining herself and her son. Whether she is MA graduate? The matter requires to be considered during the course of trial. The court while considering the interlocutory application cannot hold the mini trial. The petitioner being the husband is legally bound to maintain the respondents. I do not find any error in impugned o