In this case a wife files for maintenance and claims that the husband owns plots worth 3 crores !! But the husband escapes with just 3000 pm monthly maintenance !! This is the advantage of being in the unorganised in recorded sector with little or no qualifications
Smart kids win this game
Karnataka High Court
H.S.Laxminarayan S/O H.S. … vs Geetalaxmi W/O H.S. … on 19 January, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
S/o H.S. Shreenivas Shetty
Age: 50 years, Occ: Business
R/o Holakeri Raste, Grantige Shop
Opp: Neelakanteshwar Temple
Chitradurga – 577 501 … Petitioner
(By Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, Adv.)
Geetalaxmi W/o H.S. Laxminarayana
Age: 35 years, Occ: Household
R/o H.No.10-4-66, Maktalpet
Gunj Road, Raichur – 584 201 … Respondent
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family
Court Act, praying to allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Family Court, Raichur in Crl.Misc.No.33/2015 and
dismiss the Crl.Misc.No.33/2015 filed by the respondent.
This RPFC coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
The petitioner has filed this revision petition, challenging the order dated 14.08.2015 passed in Crl.Misc. No.33/2015 by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Raichur, granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the respondent- wife.
2. The respondent herein filed a criminal Misc. petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking for monthly maintenance contending that the petitioner and the respondent herein are legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 14.05.2004 at Vasavi Mahal, Chitradurga. They led happy married life for few months. Thereafter, the petitioner and his family members started harassing the respondent to bring the dowry. The specific case of the respondent-wife is that at the time of marriage, her parents had given 3 Tolas of Gold as a dowry to the petitioner. Inspite of the same, the petitioner started harassing the respondent on the ground that she is not able to give birth to the child. The specific case pleaded by the respondent is that her husband is running a finance business and doing ayurvedic medicine business and earning more than Rs.40,000/- p.m. and he also owns two plots worth Rs.3 crores. Whereas, the respondent is living under the mercy of her parents. She is unable to maintain herself. Hence, she filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. to maintain herself.
3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Family Court, the petitioner herein had entered appearance in the said petition and filed the written statement, denying the averments made in the claim petition and also contended that he is running a petty business and earning Rs.400/- to 500/- per day.
4. The Family Court after examining the matter in detail, found that the respondent herein is not in a position to maintain herself. There is obligation on the part of the husband to maintain his wife. Hence, the wife is entitled for maintenance. Accordingly, taking into consideration the capacity of the husband to pay the maintenance, awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the wife from the date of the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband has filed this revision petition.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned in this revision petition and other relevant records.
6. The record clearly discloses that the petitioner and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 14.05.2004. The specific allegation of the respondent is that even after three years of the marriage, she was not able to give birth to the child. In view of that, her husband and his family members started harassing her and she was thrown out from the marital house. She was under the mercy of her parents. In view of that, she had filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking for maintenance. The Family Court after examining the matter in detail and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found that the husband himself has admitted that he was doing petty business and earning Rs.400/- to 500/- per day. Accordingly, taking into consideration the capacity of the petitioner to pay the maintenance, awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. The maintenance awarded by the Family Court is in accordance with law. It is the obligation on the part of the husband to maintain his wife. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2015 filed for stay is also dismissed.