ORDER

Challenging order dated 16.11.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous no.202/2019 by Family Court, Davanagere, this petition is filed.

2. Sri B.K. Manjunath, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is husband and respondent - wife had filed petition before Family Court for maintenance. It was submitted that marriage of petitioner and respondent was celebrated on 06.03.1986 at Chikkanahalli village, Davanagere Taluk. It was submitted that after marriage, two daughters were born. Subsequently without any justification, respondent disserted petitioner and started residing at her parents house. Thirty years thereafter, respondent filed application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking for maintenance at rate of Rs.10,000/- per month allegedly at instance of daughters. It was submitted, said application was totally devoid of merits. It was specifically submitted, there were no specific averments in petition about entitlement for maintenance. It was further submitted, application being filed after thirty years was not taken note by learned Family Judge. It was also submitted, petitioner was an agricultural coolie having meager income and award of maintenance at rate of Rs.3,000/- per month was not justified. In view of above, learned counsel sought for stay of impugned order.

3. Heard and perused impugned order as well as copy of petition made available by learned counsel for petitioner for perusal of this Court.

4. Admittedly, relationship between parties is not disputed. Even respondent residing separately from petitioner is also not in dispute. While petitioner is alleging that same is without any justification, respondent has stated that same was due to harassment and forcing her to consent for his second marriage. It is seen that parties have contested matter and led evidence. On consideration, Family Court has arrived at specific finding that petitioner despite having sufficient means and respondent not having any source of livelihood has ordered for payment of monthly maintenance at rate of Rs.3,000/- per month.

5. Insofar as first ground urged, perusal of averments in petition clearly indicate specific assertion that despite having sufficient means petitioner had failed and neglected to maintain respondent. It is seen, there are specific averments that respondent is without any avocation and source of income and requires maintenance.

6. In view of specific assertion in paragraphs no.4 to 7 of petition, first ground of challenge would be rendered untenable. Insofar as filing of application belatedly, same would not be a justification for denial of application. Cause of action for filing of application for maintenance would be from date of need for sustenance. Therefore, either of main grounds urged would not be tenable.

7. Though, it is contended that petitioner is a coolie, it is seen that Trial Court has taken note of Record of Rights, which shows his land holding. In any case, award of Rs.3,000/- granted as monthly maintenance cannot be held to be excessive or unjustified. Hence, I do not find any justification to interfere.

Consequently, petition and application for stay are dismissed.