SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr. Henry Darshi vs Smt. Hepzibah on 13 April, 2018

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BEN CH

ON THE 13 T H DAY OF A PRIL 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K .N . PHA NEENDRA

R.P.F .C.NO.100048/2016

BETWEEN :

MR.HENRY DARSHI
S/O DARSHI SANGEETRAO
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE DELIVERY LEADER,
WIPRO PBO S OLUT ION,
R/O PLOT NO.31, MIDC, PHASE- 2,
RAJIV GANDHI INFOTECH PART ,
HINJEWADI, PUNE.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI CHETAN T LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT.HEPZIBA H HENRY DARSHI
@ HEPZIBAH YUMA RTHY
W/O MR.HENRY DA RSH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUS EWIFE,
R/O MANTUR ROA D, HUBBA LLI .
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI G.I .GACHCHINAMATH, ADV OCATE)

THIS RPFC IS FI LED UNDER SECTI ON 19( 4) OF
THE FAMILY COURTS ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE T HE
ORDER DATED 03.12.2015 PASSED IN
:2:

CRL.MISC.NO.413/ 2012 BY THE PRINCIPAL J UDGE,
FAMILY COURT A T HUBBA LLI IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS RPF C COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE F OLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the counsel for respondent and perused the

records.

2. The respondent is the wife and the

petitioner herein is the husband. There is no

dispute with regard relationship and that, their

marriage being taken place on 14.01.2006. It is

also not in dispute that, as on the date of filing of

the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., by the

respondent, before the Principal Judge, Family

Court, Hubballi, they were not living together.

3. The wife filed a petition claiming

maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month before the

Family Court, Hubballi making allegations that, the
:3:

husband and wife led the martial life for a short

period of 4 to 5 months and thereafter due to

some family difference they separated and the

wife has been living separately. There are some

allegations and counter allegations made in the

petition and as well as in objection statement filed

by the husband.

4. Considering the pleadings of the parties,

the trial Court has framed the following points for

consideration.

“1. Whe the r the petitioner pro ves that
respondent has willfully neglecte d or
refuse d to maintain the petitio ner
though he is having sufficient income?

2. Whether the petitio ner is unable to
maintain he rself?

3. Whe ther the petitioner is entitled fo r
mainte nance as claimed in the petition?

4. What order?”

:4:

5. The claimant wife has led the evidence

before the trial Court in support of her petition

and examined as PW.1 and got marked documents

as Exs.P.1 to P.3. The respondent also examined

himself as RW.1 and one more witness as RW.2

and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.37 and 36A. After

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on

record, the trial Court has come to the conclusion

that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance of

Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of petition

by deducting the interim maintenance, if any,

already paid in that case. The said order is

challenged before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner

(husband) strenuously contends before this Court

that, at the time of filing of the petition itself,

there was suppression of material facts as at that

time she was working and she was earning salary

not less than Rs.8,000/- per month. Though she
:5:

resigned the job on 10.02.2015 from Nalanda

P.U.College, Hubballi as non teaching staff, but at

that point of time she was receiving salary and the

petition was filed in the year 2012. Therefore she

suppressed the said material and on that ground

she is not entitled for any maintenance.

7. Secondly, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that, he has produced a

memo along with a document showing that she

recently joined as a Training Coordinator at

Fasken Training and Consultancy Services Limited,

Hubballi and she appears to have been drawing

handsome salary therefore on that ground also she

is not entitled for any maintenance.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent (wife) submitted before this Court

that, though there is some earnings earlier, but

due to the impact of ill-treatment by her husband,
:6:

respondent went to depression and resigned the

job on 10.02.2015 due her ill health. Thereafter

she did not join any companies and it is submitted

that, the document produced before the Court is

created and the same cannot be relied upon by

this Court to establish that, she is presently

working in any of the companies.

9. Both the learned counsel have no

grievances with regard to the avocation of the

petitioner (husband) that he is an Engineer and he

is drawing salary of more than Rs.1,15,000/- per

month and his father was also a pensioner and he

got a separate house. Therefore, the affluency of

the petitioner is not under dispute. The petitioner

husband has also stated before the trial Court in

his statement that, though he has pleaded in the

petition that he has been ready and willing to lead

marital life with his wife, but ultimately he said

that, he never want to live with her in any manner
:7:

as husband and wife. Therefore that also clears off

the doubt that, there is no chances of

reconciliation between the husband and wife, they

have taken a decision to live apart with each

other. This circumstances also fortified by the

submission made by the learned counsel that, the

husband has also filed a divorce petition and the

same was dismissed by the Family Court and the

husband has preferred an appeal against the said

order and the same is pending. It clearly goes to

show that, the differences between the husband

and wife and they don’t want to live together

particularly the husband wants divorce from the

wife. It is also evident from the judgment of the

trial Court that, the depression of wife had taken

place, because the husband has demanded for an

agreement to be executed by the wife to live with

him. It is quite astonishing to say here that the

sanctity of the marriage has to be tested with
:8:

regard to the love and affection between the

husband and wife and it cannot be carried on the

basis of the agreement between the parties

otherwise there is no difference between an

employer and employee who can enter into an

agreement for the purpose of their conduct of the

business. The marriage institution cannot be a

business, it is purely based on trust and as well as

love and affection between the husband and wife.

When no tinge of love and affection is in existence

between the husband and wife, there is no reason

to say they can still live on the basis of any

agreement. Therefore the trial Court has rightly

come to the conclusion that the wife is residing

separately on valid grounds and thereby husband

had neglected her and not made any arrangements

for her maintenance.

10. Now come to the quantum of

maintenance which is the main ground urged
:9:

before this Court. Of course, the petitioner has not

stated in his petition that, the respondent was

working earlier in an institution and drawing some

salary. This made the respondent to takeout

certain documents and he has produced various

documents which are marked at Exs.R.22 to R.37

the salary registers, copies of salary slips which

clearly disclose that she had drawn an amount of

Rs.8,325/- to Rs.9,522/- up to December, 2015. It

is also not in dispute or it is established that, she

left the job on 10.02.2015. Whatever the amount

she has drawn perhaps she already spent that for

the purpose of maintaining herself. The amount

which was drawn by her, considering the present

day circumstances, in my opinion when she was

working, it would not have been sufficient for her

to maintain herself. But presently the document

also shows that, no salary was drawn by her from

10.02.2015 as per Ex.R.7, that has been mainly
: 10 :

relied upon by the trial Court, to come to the

conclusion that she is still entitled for

maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month as already

ordered by the Trial Court.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner

strenuously contends that even after she resigned

from said job she again joined some other

company and she has been drawing handsome

salary. But the document which is produced before

the Court, it appears to be downloaded from the

internet which shows that she is working as the

Training Coordinator at Fasken Training and

Consultancy Services Limited. But in my opinion

this document itself is not sufficient to draw any

inference as to what is the salary she is drawing,

whether she is in fact given with an appointment

order, whether she continued to serve the said

institution even as on today. Therefore, the said
: 11 :

document is very hazy to be taken into

consideration at this stage.

12. However, the petitioner is at liberty to

move the trial Court itself under Section 127 for

consideration or modification of the maintenance

order, if at all he is able to prove that, the

respondent wife has joined the services thereafter

the passing of the order by the trial Court and she

is earning handsome salary. But for the present in

my opinion, whatever the order passed by the

Trial Court holds good, till it is modified or set

aside by the trial Court itself.

13. As I have already noted and also

considered and an inference has been drawn by

the trial Court that, the petitioner husband is

affluent and drawing salary more than

Rs.1,15,000/- per month he has got an

independent house and his father is a pensioner
: 12 :

and no other responsibility so far as the petitioner

husband is concerned. Therefore, it would not be

any burden to him, to pay an amount of

Rs.15,000/- as ordered by the trial Court. Under

the facts and circumstances of the case, I don’t

find any strong reasons to interfere with the

orders passed by the trial Court. Hence, giving

such liberty as noted above, the petition deserves

to be dismissed. Accordingly the following order is

passed.

ORDER

1. Petition is dismissed.

2. However the petitioner is at liberty
to approach the competent Court for
either for cancellation or
modification of the order passed by
the trial Court on the basis of any
changed circumstances.

SD/-

JUDGE

E M/ –

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh