The court affirmed the obligation to provide maintenance for dependents with disabilities, emphasizing that avoidance of responsibilities by the husband warrants increased support.

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.312/2016 dated 17.10.2023 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

"PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court be pleased to a) call for records;

b) set aside the impugned order dated 17-10-2023 in Crl.Misc.No.312/2016 by the Hon'ble IV Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bangalore to the extent of non granting of the maintenance claimed by the petitioners;

c) Pass any order as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case in the ends of Justice and equity."

2. Crl.Misc.No.312/2016 is filed by the petitioners under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.1/wife and an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.2/son. It is the case of the wife that the son is physically and mentally disabled person and he is under the care and custody of the wife. It is stated that the husband had deserted the wife and he is living with another woman. He is capable of maintaining the wife and in spite of the same, he is not taking care of the legally wedded wife and the son who is mentally and physically handicapped.

3. By way of the impugned order, the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and the Court had refused to grant maintenance to the son stating that no document is filed to show that the son is suffering with mental and physical ailments. While granting maintenance, the Family Court had observed that as the wife is already receiving additional amount of Rs.2,000/-, it is appropriate to grant maintenance of an amount of Rs.3,000/- and accordingly granted an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1/wife is aged 62 years and petitioner No.2/son is 29 years old who is suffering with mental as well as physical ailments and mother is not in a position to take care of the needs of the son. An amount of Rs.3,000/- per month that is granted by the Family Court is on the lower side. Learned counsel submits that the Family Court went wrong in observing that no medical document is filed to make out that the son is a mentally challenged person, he being the major, is not entitled for maintenance. He submits that though he is 29 years old he looks like a small boy and he is incapable of maintaining himself. Both the mother and the son are present before this Court. Even looking at the boy itself, the Court can understand the mental status of the boy. It is submitted that the Family Court ought to have granted maintenance as sought for.

5. Notice sent to the respondent was returned as unclaimed and this Court by order dated 02.05.2025 had held that the notice to respondent is sufficient.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The material on record shows that the husband had sold certain properties and had entered into certain transactions. Even before the Family Court also he had not subjected himself for cross-examination and it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of the order passed by the Family Court, the husband is neither paying the maintenance amount nor coming before the Court. Even in this case also, the notice issued to the respondent is returned as unclaimed. It shows how the husband is avoiding to come before the Court and shying away from the responsibility of taking care of the wife and the son who is incapable of maintaining himself.

7. Considering all these aspects, this Court is passing the following:

ORDER