MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C denied

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
M.F.A. NO.5732 OF 2015 (FC) C/W R.P.F.C. NO.125 OF 2015 IN M.F.A. NO.5732 OF 2015

BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHUBHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
R/O NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577001….APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KEMPANNA, ADV.,)
AND:

1. SRI. H. SATISH
S/O H.N. ONKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC:BUSINESS
R/AT # 820, OPP: S.E. OFFICE
R.M.R. ROAD, PARK EXTENSION,SHIVAMOGGA….RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T. ADV.,)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT

ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

DATED:19.06.2015 PASSED IN CRI.MISC. NO.326/2013 ON THE MFA No.5732 of 2015 C/W RPFC No.125 of 2015

FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT DAVANGERE,

DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S 125 OF CR.P.C.

IN R.P.F.C. NO.125 OF 2015
BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SHUBHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE
R/O NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT
DAVANGERE….PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KEMPANNA, ADV.,)
AND:

1. SRI. H. SATISH
S/O H.N. ONKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/AT NO.820, OPP: S.E. OFFICE RMR ROAD, PARK EXTENSION,SHIVAMOGA….RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T. ADV.,)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.06.2015 PASSED IN CRI.MISC.NO.326/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C.

MFA No.5732 of 2015 C/W RPFC No.125 of 2015

THIS APPEAL AND THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

This appeal and revision petition have been filed by the wife which arise out of common judgment dated 19.06.2015 passed in M.C.No.80/2014 and Crl.Misc.No.326/2013. By the aforesaid common judgment, the Family Court has allowed the petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and has dismissed the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The appeal and revision petition were therefore heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

See also  Whether Hindu woman marrying a Hindu man having a lawfully wedded wife entitled to maintenance?

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal and revision petition, briefly stated are that the marriage between the parties was performed on 21.05.1987 in MFA No.5732 of 2015 C/W RPFC No.125 of 2015 Basaveshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Hassan. Out of the wedlock, a son and a daughter namely Sharath and Niharika were born to them. It is not in dispute that the son namely Sharath has completed his graduation in Engineering and is assisting the husband in her business. Similarly, daughter namely Niharika has also completed her graduation in Engineering and is under the care and custody of the husband. The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act on 02.04.2014 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It was inter alia pleaded in the petition that the husband on 30.09.2012 at about 3 a.m., picked up a quarrel with the wife on the ground of alleged illicit relationship. The wife, however, refuted the allegations made by the husband. However, the wife left the matrimonial home and started residing with her sister. However, despite efforts being made by the husband, the wife did not join the matrimonial home. The husband thereupon filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The wife, on being served with the notice of the proceedings, filed statement of objections in which the relationship between the parties as well as the factum of birth of children was admitted. However, remaining averments made in the petition were denied. It was averred that the husband, after the death of his mother, used to suspect the chastity of the wife and prevented her from giving public performances as veena player. It was also pleaded that the husband pressurized the wife to accept that she was having illicit relationship with other persons. However, when the wife refused to accept the same, she was ill-treated and harassed by the husband. Thereupon, she left the matrimonial home. It was also pleaded that since the wife had filed a petition seeking maintenance, therefore, as a counter blast, this petition under Section 9 of the Act was filed. The husband examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited MFA No.5732 of 2015 C/W RPFC No.125 of 2015 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The wife examined herself and did not produce any document.

See also  Husband can prove cruelty by wife to his relatives without examining them?

4. The Family Court, vide judgment dated 19.06.2015 inter alia held that the wife has abandoned the matrimonial home on her own will and wish without there being any justifiable ground. Accordingly, the petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act was allowed. The Family Court, vide common judgment passed in Crl.Misc.No.326/2013 inter alia held that the wife has failed to prove that the husband has willfully refused and has neglected to maintain the wife. It has further held that the wife has left the matrimonial home on her won will and wish and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. Accordingly, the Family Court vide judgment dated 19.06.2015, allowed M.C.No.80/2014 filed by the husband whereas dismissed Crl.Misc.No.326/2013 filed by the wife. In MFA No.5732 of 2015 C/W RPFC No.125 of 2015 the aforesaid factual background, this appeal and revision petition have been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the wife submitted that the husband is not taking care of the children and the wife. It is further submitted that the Family Court has not considered the facts. Learned counsel for the wife has read paragraph 17 as well as paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment. It is also pointed out that the wife is looking after the children. On the other hand, learned counsel for the husband has supported the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court.

6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. From perusal of the statement of husband as well as wife, it is evident that the marriage between the parties was performed on 21.05.1987. Thereafter, they have stayed together for a period of 25 years. All of a sudden, on 30.09.2012, the MFA No.5732 of 2015 C/W RPFC No.125 of 2015 wife left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, no effort has been made by her to join the matrimonial home. The husband is interested in continuing the marital life with the wife and therefore, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act. The Family Court, in the state of evidence on record, has rightly allowed the petition filed by the husband. Sofar as the claim of the wife with regard to payment of maintenance at Rs.35,000/- p.m. is concerned, from the evidence adduced by the parties, it is evident that the wife has failed to prove that the husband has either willfully refused or neglected to maintain her. The wife herself has abandoned the matrimonial home on 30.09.2012 and since then, for more than 10 years, she is residing separately. Therefore, the ingredients as mentioned under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. not having been satisfied, the Family MFA No.5732 of 2015 C/W RPFC No.125 of 2015 Court has rightly rejected the claim preferred by the wife.

See also  A Highly qualified Women is capable of Maintaining herself as well as the Ghild

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal as well as petition.

Accordingly, the same fail and are hereby dismissed.

Consequently, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed.

JUDGE Sd/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Husband can prove cruelty by wife to his relatives without examining them?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation