ORDER

None appears for petitioner. Perusal of order sheet reveals there was no representation for petitioner even on previous dates of hearing.

[

2. Challenging order dated 16th November 2018 passed by Prl. Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, in C.Mis. 150/16, this petition is filed.

3. Perusal of petition would indicate that petition is filed by husband. It is stated that marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 20.09.2015 at Sri Gopalaswamy Temple, Ananayakanahalli as per Hindu customs. It is stated that after marriage respondent residing with petitioner for very short period of time. Thereafter she went to her parents house. Thereafter she alleged that she was ill-treated & abused in filthy language etc., and sent to her parental house and re-conciliation through panchayath failed and petitioner had failed and neglected to maintain her, she filed C.Mis.no. 150/2016 under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.PC' for short) seeking maintenance at Rs.10,000/-

per month.

4. It is stated that on service of notice, petitioner appeared before Family Court and filed objections, denying allegations and entitlement for maintainance.

5. After recording evidence, wherein only material produced by respondent/wife were wedding card, photograph, acknowledgment, endorsement and RTC extracts, learned Family Judge without proper consideration ordered payment of monthly maintenance at Rs.3,000/-. Since same was illegal and arbitrary, present petition was filed.

6. Main ground of challenge is that there was no material to establish sufficient cause for respondent to reside separately from petitioner. On other hand, petitioner has stated that respondent had left him and his two children born from his first wife uncared for, picked petty quarrels and voluntarily deserted him. As such, she was not entitled for maintenance. It is further contended that demands of dowry though alleged, was not substantiated with any material. On quantum, it is pleaded that petitioner has underwent heart surgery and only on ground that petitioner was owning 13 guntas of arecanut growing land, ordered for paying Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance and same is unjustified.

7. Respondent is served and unrepresented. Perused petition and order impugned.

8. From above, point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether petitioner has made out a case for interference? "

9. At outset, it is seen that there is no dispute about solemnization of marriage between petitioner and respondent on 20.09.2015. There is also no dispute about petitioner and respondent staying together for some time after marriage. While respondent alleged that due to ill-treatment by petitioner and his parents, she was forced to leave petitioner and reside with her parents, petitioner alleged that she voluntarily deserted him. Learned Family Court Judge after taking note of rival contentions, examined materials on record and framed following points for consideration:

1) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has willfully neglected to give maintenance to her?

2) Whether the petitioner prove that she is entitled to maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month ?

10. It thereafter referred to deposition of respondent, wherein she had stated about approaching Women Police Station, Tumakuru and lodging complaint of abuse by petitioner after consuming alcohol. Ex.P3 was acknowledgment and Ex.P4 was Endorsement issued by Police Station substantiated same. From said material, learned Family Court Judge noted that petitioner had undertaken before Police to look after his wife in good manner. It also noted deposition of petitioner, wherein there was admission of undertaking. Learned Family Court Judge further refers to his statement that he is not aware about whereabouts of his children born from 1st wife and that he had not made any arrangement towards maintenance of respondent and children, to conclude that there was failure and neglect by petitioner to maintain respondent.

11. Insofar as quantum