Though the matter is listed for admission, with the

consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for

final disposal.

2.

The respondent in Crl.Misc.No.307/2020 on the file

of

learned

Principal

Judge,

Family

Court

at

Vijayapur

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) is impugning the order

dated 29.10.2022, allowing the petition under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. and awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-

from the date of petition till her lifetime or till her re-marriage.

3.

The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Trial Court.

4.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/wife

filed Crl.Misc.No.307/2020 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking

maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is contended that

she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent as they

married during the year 2013. About five years earlier to filing

of the petition, she was thrown out of the house and since then

the respondent has not made any arrangement for her

- 3 -

maintenance. The petitioner is not having any independent

income. The respondent is an agriculturist having more than

14 acres of land and earning Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. Since

he neglected to maintain the petitioner, she filed a petition

seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-.

5.

The respondent has appeared before the Trial Court

and admitted the relationship of husband and wife. However, it

is contended that he never ill-treated the petitioner but the

petitioner herself used to pick up quarrel with him. In spite of

holding panchayath by the elders, the petitioner had not

headed to their advice. The respondent has taken a separate

house and is working in a private sector. He is leading the life

with difficulty. He resisted the claim of the petitioner for grant

of monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-.

6.

The petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and got

examined PW.2. She got marked Exs.P1 to P9 in support of her

contentions. The respondent examined himself as DW.1 and got

marked Exs.D1 to D6 in support of his contentions.

7.

The Trial Court after taking into consideration all

these

materials

passed

the

impugned

order

awarding

- 4 -

maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by

the same, the respondent is before this Court.

8.

Heard learned counsel Sri Sanganabasava B. Patil

for the petitioner and learned counsel Smt. Ratna N.

Shivayogimath for the respondent.

9.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner/husband

contended that the petitioner, who is respondent before the

Trial Court is an agricultural coolie and is not in a position to

pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, he prays

for allowing the petition in the interest of justice by

reconsidering the contentions taken by the petitioner before the

Trial Court.

10.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/wife

opposing the petition submitted that the petitioner/husband is

an agriculturist and owning more than 14 acres of land in his

name. He contacted second marriage during the year 2015

and Exs.R1 to R4 and Exs.P7 and P8 prove the said contention.

Therefore, the Trial Court was right in awarding monthly

maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss

the petition.

- 5 -

11.

Perused the materials on record including the Trial

Court records. In view of the rival contentions urged by

learned counsel for the parties, the point that would arise for

my consideration is:

“Whether the impugned order passed by the

Trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality

and calls for interference by this Court?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the

following:

REASONS

12.

The relationship between the parties is not in

dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent married

during the year 2013. It is the contention of the wife that the

respondent/husband contacted second marriage and she was

thrown out of the matrimonial house and therefore, she filed a

petition seeking maintenance from her husband. She has

prod