IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

RPFC NO.100121 OF 2014

BETWEEN

Meeran Sab S/o Khaja Mohiddin Aged about 48 years R/o Ward No.7 Chaluvadi street behind Arabi Madarasa Ground Chapparadahalli, Hospet

... Petitioner

(by Shri Y Lakshmikanth Reddy and Smt. Y Malathi Reddy, Advocates)

AND

1.Smt Zannath @ Zeenath W/o Meeran Sab Aged about 36 years Occ: House wife

2. Afreen Banu D/o Meeran Sab Aged about 15 years Occ:student

3.Nasir S/o Meeran Sab Aged about 13 years student

Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are minors, represented by their natural guardian mother R-1

All are R/o Yammiganur village Bellary Taluk and District

... Respondents

(V/o dated 31.10.2019 service of notice to R-1 is held sufficient)

This RPFC filed under Sec.19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 in Crl. Misc. Case No.240/2013 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court at Bellary partly allowing the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

This revision petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

Being aggrieved by the order dated 29th April, 2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.240 of 2013 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court at Bellary, the petitioner has presented this Revision Petition. The petitioner herein is the respondent before the Court below.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties in this revision petition are referred to their rank before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioners before the trial Court that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent-husband and their marriage was celebrated on 11th April, 1999 and in wedlock petitioners No.2 and 3 were born to them. After certain period, the respondent-husband started ill-treating the petitioner No.1 without any cause and hence the petitioners were constrained to take shelter under the father of petitioner No.1. The petitioners are residing separately from 16th June, 2013 and have no means for livelihood. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.240 of 2103 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballary and sought for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After receipt of summons the respondent-petitioner herein has appeared through Advocate and filed the statement of objections. The respondent admits the relationship between the parties. However, the only contention raised by the respondent herein was that he has aged parents and younger brother and sisters to be looked after. He has also stated that he is running a tea-stall with the help of younger brother and father and is not getting sufficient income to meet his expenditure, and as such he states that he is not in a position to meet the demand made by the petitioners-respondents herein. He further submits that since the petitioner No.1-wife herself has left the matrimonial home, and in view of the same, it is not a case for consideration before the Trial Court. In order to establish her case, the

3

petitioner No.1-wife examined herself as PW1 and got marked documents as Exhibits P1 to P5. On behalf of the respondenthusband, the respondent examined as RW1 and got marked documents as Exhibits R1 and R2. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of materials placed before it, by its order dated 29th April, 2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month each to petitioners No.2 and 3 from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29th April 2014, the respondent has preferred this Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that the petitioner-husband himself is running a small tea-stall and he is required to take care of his aged parents and his younger brother and sister and his earning is approximately to Rs.3,000-4,000/- per month and despite the same the Trial Court has passed the impugned order which requires to be interfered by this Court.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon consideration of the material on record, it is an admitted

4

fact that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the children born to them in their wedlock. It is pertinent to observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAMIMA FAROOQUI v. SHAHID KHAN reported in (2015)5 SCC 705 at paragraph 13 of the judgment has observed thus:

"13. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC,

5

it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right."

6. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment would clearly indicate that it is the social obligation on the part of the husband to take care of his wife and children. In the instant case, though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners No.2 and 3 are major children, there is no record produced to establish the fact that the petitioners No.2 is married and petitioner No.3 is working and earning his livelihood. In that view of the matter, petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following:

O R D E R

• 1. Petition dismissed.
• 2. Order dated 29th April, 2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.240 of 2013 by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bellary, is confirmed.

Sd/- JUDGE

lnn