(Prayer: This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act., against the Order dated 05.04.2016 passed in C.Misc.No.71/2015 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Davanagere, partly allowing the petition filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C.,)
1. The revision petitioner, who is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of 2nd respondent has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 5th April, 2016 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 71/2015 by the Family Court, Davangere granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent-son from the date of petition.
2. The respondents, who are petitioners before the Family Court, filed a claim petition claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that, the marriage between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 24.5.2012 at Shri Chowdeshwari Temple at Sigandur village of Sagar Taluk and out of their wedlock, 2nd respondent was born. It is the specific case of the 1st respondent before the Family Court that after some time, the present revision petitioner husband started harassing the 1st respondent-wife at the instance of his mother and sister by demanding dowry of Rs.50,000/-. The mother of the 1st respondent, who is serving as roti maker some how adjusted Rs.25,000/- and paid it to the revision petitioner but in spite of it, revision petitioner did not stop his harassment and ill treatment towards the 1st respondent. Ultimately, the 1st respondent along with 2nd respondent left the petitioner. In spite of negotiations, the revision petitioner did not provide basic necessities to the respondents. The revision petitioner is plying auto and also doing business earning monthly income of Rs.30,000/-. The 1st respondent, who is 1st petitioner before the Family Court is house wife having no independent source of income for maintenance of herself and her son. The revision petitioner has willfully refused and neglected to maintain the respondents and therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous petition was filed.
3. The revision petitioner-respondent filed objections before the Family Court denying the averments made in the petition but admitted the status of the respondents being wife and son. He denied the remaining averments contending that the 1st respondent herein has led the marital life for over a period of six months and the 1st respondent has abandoned the matrimonial home on her own accord without intimation to him. Even during her stay in the matrimonial home, she did not co-operate with the revision petitioner in leading the marital life, etc., and therefore, sought to dismiss the revision petition.
4. In order to prove her case, the 1st respondent herein- wife examined herself as P.W.1 and produced the document Ex.P.1 and the revision petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 and produced the material documents Exs.R.1 to 7.
5. After hearing both the Counsel, the Family Court recorded a finding that the 1st respondent has proved that the revision petitioner has willfully refused to maintain the respondents herein. She has further proved that they are unable to maintain themselves and that her husband-revision petitioner has got sufficient source of income to maintain them and therefore, they are entitled for maintenance. Accordingly, by the impugned order, the Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd respondent-son and rejected the claim of the 1st respondent-wife, against which, the present revision petition is filed by the husband.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.
7. Sri Rudrappa. P., learned Counsel for Sri Maruthi G.B., for the revision petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the son is without any basis when the relationship of the wife -1 respondent and the revision petitioner-husband is disputed and she has voluntarily left the matrimonial home. Hence, the Family Court is not justified in awarding maintenance to the son-2nd respondent and therefore, sought to allow the revision petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the wife and the son, who are respondents herein had filed maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the revision petitioner is plying auto and also doing business and thereby getting the monthly income of Rs.30,000/- and hence, they are entitled for maintenance. Though the husband-revision petitioner filed detailed objections, has not disputed the relationship between himself, wife and son. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that the 1st respondent-wife has voluntarily left the matrimonial home and therefore, the respondents are not entitled for maintenance. It is not in dispute that the Family Court has rejected the claim of maintenance for the wife-1st respondent and granted a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the son-2nd respondent when the relationship of the parties is not disputed and the fact that the 2nd respondent is his son is not in dispute. When it is admitted by the revision petitioner that the 2nd respondent is his son, it is the bounden duty of the revision petitioner to maintain the minor son under the provisions of Section 125(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also not in dispute that the husband-revision petitioner has not produced any material documents before the Court to show that the 1st respondent-wife and 2nd respondent- son are capable of maintaining themselves and in the absence of any material document, it is the duty of the father to maintain the minor son. The Family Court considering both oral and documentary evidence on record awarded the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- only to the minor son which is hardly insufficient to meet expenses in regard to education and day to day livelihood.
10. The Hon ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 at para 3 held as under:-
3. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the code ) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a begger. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life dust unto dust . It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.
11. For the reasons stated above, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court which is just and proper and the same is in accordance with law.
Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.