_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BNVGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10'" DAY OF DECEMBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE s.N.sATYANARAjg'g;§$IA5''ej'--.e: -.
RPFC.NO. 109 [ 2008
BETWEEN:
Sri S.Anbarasu,
S/0 B.Srinivasan,
Aged 39 years,
Working as Agricultural
Development Officer, ' _
Now working as Agricuituxal Ofiicerk '
R/0 Errappanayakan0o'r.__ Ellage, V ~
Madaraha11iP0st, * V
Pochampalli Taluk,
Dharrnapuri Dismct _ _ -
[Now Krishnagiri1?isu1c%.1 %
TAMIL " . ...1'ETI'.l'IONER.
(By Adv.)
AND:
" * _ASmf,,V*..'3,_a;itha Kuzn-am-;'
W/Q S.A-nbarasu,
' L 1),' Q "C..V'e»rik_é1tesh,
"Ag'e'rj: 28*Y'e.ars,' ' V »
R/Q No.3, Né_§.ve:Cr0ss Road,
I Floor, Chikkamarahalli,
_ 3 Bangalore; 560 040,
_ New r/av--~N0.89, II} Cross,
» . _' " Hirriagiri Meadows, Gottigere,
Bannerghatta Road,
E BANGALORE - 560 033. RESPONDENT.
{Respondent -- Served)
-2-
This RPFC is filed 11/ 8 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.08.2008 passed
in C.Misc.No.1l 1/05 on the file of the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bangalore, allowing the petitioner filed 11/8
125 of Cr. P.C. for maintenance.
This RPFC coming on for hearing this day, the Court
made the following: 1
O R D E R
This revision petition is fi1e.d~~by4 th_e.V”resiponde,ntV kl
husband challenging the order dated :3;3;8.2e08
C.i\/Iisc.No.i11/2005 on ine”i’i’1’e._ of the Pfiiicipfiag…_,,,I.:,:iige,
Family Court, Bangalore, wherein:’claiin of.’p’eiitioner under
Section 125 of CI’.P.C forV:i;ngintenanceV”iis’allowed awarding
mainteiianceii i{aiej of i§e;6′,o00/– per month and
Rs.2,000–/ Q ‘towardsinllitigatioil expenses.
2’. in this . proceeding, the parties are referred to by
‘ in the trial Court.
facts leading to this appeal are that petitioner
‘;_yV.Saiuitha3_ Kumari and respondent S.Anbara-su are legally
A i~:if”‘.fiVedded husband and wife, their marriage was Celebrated by
elders in their family on 13.11.1997, immediately after
L/V/L/la
marriage matrimonial house was set up in
Errappanaikanoor viliage, Madarahaiii Post, Pochainfiaili
Taluk, Dharmapuri District now Krishnagiri
Nadu, petitioner ~«~ Wife lived in matrimonia1_hr)u:sev her”
husband up to 31.12.1987. ‘I’I:1erea;t’ter,_:she ‘igft’Am;§tri:n§fi:gi”f
home never to come back again. It isgthe casefiof. petitioner
that marriage between and was
conducted by paying -. 550
grams of gold ornaments for diesel
Bullet motor cycie, later into demand for
Maruti by her Parents
spendingba oi Maruti Car was not
given respondentgwg and iii treating her and
her parentsi.”‘responVdent tried to comrnit murder of petitioner
~._by kerosenxmon her on one occasion and again
tpusning.he;”‘~into Well on another occasion with a View to
coerce her’t4:;g;et more dowry and finaily she was thrown out
of houseon 31.12.1997. It is the case of petitioner that her
A Cfatteinpts to rejoin her husband failed, hence she is Iiving
‘ her parents. According to her, her husband fiied a
we
.. 4 ..
petition seeking decree for divorce dissolving marriage
between herself and respondent by filing 1V[OP.No.3/2003 on
the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, she does
not have any avocation and there is no other person to”-take
care of her, she requires a sum of Rs.10,000/– , her
is gainfully employed as Agricultural Development
Tamil Nadu drawing salary of R§3.>I8;OO&0f’e–, V
father is a retired Head Master gettin:’g._lrr1ontl*ily
Rs.8,000/-, respondent ‘–his._pbfather l’
measuring about 30 acres wi1e1″eing’«there are 10002 yielding
Coconut trees and 50 Mango fruits, they are
also cL3.ltiyafing. etciflrespondent and his father
have fiVe–.ho«use .invi:{;ri-shiiagiri, Mathur and Uthanagiri,
resporidenttis ” a.V_’suh.sta~ntia1 person capable of paying
sum of ‘Rs–.—-l’0,000/– towards maintenance to her.
piienced, ‘petiiionvfor maintenance.
in the said proceedings, respondent entered
T’a.ppeara’nce, filed his objection statement, wherein he
adiintted relationship, date of marriage, however, denied all
…c.ther allegations made against him regarding demand for
(“””\
.. 5 ..
dowry, attempt to murder petitioner, he has also denied the
averment made regarding his income, income of his parents
and aiso particulars regarding the assets heid by the family.
It is the case of respondent that during their in V.
matrimonial house as husband and wife together
was not consummated, they did not havethe relartioriship’
husband and wife at any point of time, it
5. The said matter went’i’s».,into
examined herself as marked
documents Ex.P1 and Piia}~i~.’iier’..case, whereas,
respondent produced and
markectdocurnents. “to RI 7.
6. appreciation of pleadings, evidence on record
and ‘after hearingicounsel for parties the trial Court has
thempetitionefs prayer and awarded a sum
, –V pcr”month as maintenance and another sum of
.3’towards litigation expenses payable by
it.”4″-..V:”‘res,pon.dent. The respondent being aggrieved by the said
“H
order has come in this revision petition challenging the
correctness of the said order.
7. In this proceeding, petitioner who V’
herein is duly served, despite service of ‘n’o?ice, sheV:ha_sVfaiIed”‘.
to appear either personally or gpthrouzgh :Counse1;v_tA The
trial Court record is summoned;–ve.p”er,used the as V
the pleadings in this Vrevgisign.-petition;__heard”‘Co1insel for
respondent — husband, This Qourt
finds that the :foi’lov’ri..ng ‘_forv’consideration in this
appeal. d it
1) Co’ur*.– was justified in awarding
».’to.::pet1tioner–w1fe, when she has
already order for maintenance by family
»
l évheiiier the trial Court has looked in to all the
and pleadings pertaining to earlier
between the parties while awarding
maintenance to the petit1o:1er–w1fe’?
3) What Order’? em,’
– 7-
This Court after hearing the parties proceeds to
answer the point Nos.) and 2 in the negative and point No.3
as per the final order by allowing this appeal for the following
I’€E1S0l’lS.
8. In the light of earlier round of litigation =
petitioner and respondent in Various Courts V’
and Madras High Court at Chennai~it.isg is Ru
suppression of material facts by be_fore
Admittedly, marriage has place onl, * it
petitioner -»~ wife lived with respondentg only “fo.r_a_tew days
intermittently from 13. I1. , on which day
she leftavmatrirnolnialidliousel’permanently. Subsequent to wife
walking out house, respondent/husband
attempts” todget her back by sending mediators from
this which was not entertained by wife and her family
notice is also issued by husband to
wife’;««.wlo.erein’ it is clearly stated that petitioner did not stay
. _”i:1 izlatrirnonial house for long time and even in a short span
it . golf’ 1 -and 1/2 n1onth’s stay on several occasions she went to
her parents house and did not stay with her husband in
‘”W\
matrimonial house. Prior to petitioner fiiing
C.1VIisc.111/2005 before the trial Court, respondent ~
husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal
his wife on 20.7 .1998 on the fiie of Court V’
Judge, Krishnagiri, in which a counter is ‘resp.on’dent.. 99
~ wife refusing to join petitioners the ground I
treatment, physical and mentVai_V:ti;rture”i:y_ her * it
has expressed her inability toggwithgi hirn” prayed for
rejection of the petition forlA’re.stitu§ti(.;n.’ofconjugal rights.
9;’ .th:ef:.said-.’proceedind”was pending, she flied a
complaint ‘ Police against her husband
under Sectie1_g1ds.,3 “of.:_i)owry Prohibition Act r/W Section
&_ gallegingyvgiowry harassment. The said complaint
~was.reg_ister.edv in CC.No.4.~93/2001, which went into full-
Hfled.ge’d After trail, husband was acquitted of the
-V cha’rges””V1ev’elled against him by judgmexzt and decree dated
9 Against which a revision petition was filed by
.9 Cr1.RC.No.i442/2002, which was aiso dismissed
“holding that she has not made out any grounds to secure
“””‘\
-10..
any of the documents which are produced by respondent —-
husband to show that marriage between himself and
respondent is not consummated and inspite of his best
efforts she has refused to come and join him. Even Vinthe
petition filed by him at the first instance for restit\utioh_:”of
conjugal rights she has refused to come and join :1’1ivUI’1i’t V’
that there is threat to her life. It is seer;..that’_onVVsim1flar V
which was raised by her before
and in criminal proceeding initiated 280 the * it
petitioner — wife has II1i$(f:I'{:lblyVA,fELil:p{.3d_ to__pro\fe’ ‘thatgthere was
threat to her life from h”ert h.1isbaZf1@i there was demand
for the of Subordinate Judge,
Krishnagiri is confirmed by order dated
30.1(),2003d”~paSsed–. in ‘efR.P.No_1442/2002. When the
–v.._wifeAxhasmiserably failed to establish all these
in.:_procee’dings, which are filed in the Courts in Tamil
the Court, Bangalore ought to have taken
nottce~.of}_that and decided the claim of petitioner on the
ffmerits of the case. “M
-11-
11. In the instant case, the Trial Court has over looked
all the documents on record and has misdirected itself to
take a sympathetic View on the petitioner -~ wife holding that
she does not have any source of income to maintair1″‘heifse1f
and she is entitled to be maintained by her huslziandr, ‘
a permanent employee of Tamil if
salary of more than R,s.14,000/–
certificate that is produced ‘~:t1:earlyl–‘;that r L’
though his salary is take “hoVmeJsala1y is
Rs.3,000/~, which cannot is because, the
deduction of a sum of:.Rs;»10tOf)Qf;–__ refund of GP?
clear1y:’tVdiscloses azlarge of his salary is being
deducted llrepa:j;irne.7:1t of loan. Otherwise, the
husband vlIo’u1d’ have fr-eceitrled a salary of about Rs. 13,000/-
It ‘a——admitted fact that he has his parents
_’living lv’lli;r:n;..both are aged, ailing and need constant
medical It is said that husband himself is a Heart
patienfigvllhelneeds major portion of his income to be spent
A C1’ the medical expenses on himself and his parents, he
‘ has to maintain. the family consisting of himself and his
‘°”””‘\
_ 12 –
parents. Further, there is already an order passed by the
Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, in M.C.,
proceedings filed by husband, wherein a sum of Rs.5()0__/_– is
ordered to be paid as maintenance to wife,
confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at: 1 ”
CRP(PD) No.839/ 2005. ‘l’l’1erefore,g~i;hereg is-‘_:no_i
for the trial Court to award
petition filed under Section ‘ . if
12. It is a peculia;’e.ase w’fiere.:’wife~.has noteven stayed
for few days in rr1at1’imionialV1 l1ot_isl’e¢.AA.’~V.VFb1″¥*’%?1″riage is not
consummated,_..she1~.has ..__jo’inj her husband on
severahfalse, flimsy grounds, all of which are
proved false ,.la”-jiroceeding before the Court of
Judicia1rMagisir.ate;ll Krishnagiri and confirmed by the High
‘Court offdiidicature at Madras. Under the circumstance,
“this_ Coujr-t,V’Vce.ij:mot comprehend how such a woman can
anefition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, when she is
“notg atxalltwilling to perform her obligation as legally wedded
if wife respondent. It is not her case that she is wiiling to
it …li.’:Ie with her husband and discharge her marital obligation
wk
-13,
as a pious wife and her husband is willfully neglecting her.
In this case, she is not Willing to discharge her obligatio_nc.as
legally wedded wife, she has refused to join her _
cohabit with him and provide him the
which he is legally entitled to. Therefore, .:4there’a.’is_’Hno
justification on her part to seel: Inaintenance hecause ,
she holds the status of wife. eveiit;that.’:’status is
recognised by the Cou;;i;’r.(ff “«.Iudgflev,’HKVrishnagiri
and the same is confirrnedvthy of Judicature
at Madras in of RS500/~– per
month for iwould be just and
reasonahleld given circumstance.
When «has neglected to discharge her
obligation as ~legal1y~. wedded wife of respondent, she cannot
~.eXer.ciseg_A–.the.. rightllttrseyek maintenance merely because she
of wife. Under the circumstances, this
Court feels’Vil:”i_h.at in the peculiar facts and circumstances
‘x__petitionerg_ — wife has not made out any grounds to seek
A ‘~lif”niaii:’1tenance from her husband and trial Court is not
i jugstified in awarding any amount to her as maintenance,
“W1
-14-
much less, the sum of Rs!-3,000/~ per month awarded in
C.Misc,111/2005.
13. In the result, the revision petition filed”.by
respondent — husband is allowed, the judgment
dated 23.8.2008 passed in C.Misc.N0. 1 1 I / off _
Principal Judge, Family court, sangai;;r¢;«:s ‘herein? _asiae”‘.
without any order as to costs. _
14. At this juncture, fer’ —
husband who is petitioner that sum of
Rs.60,000/- is deposited arrears of
maintenance and “_’ ~tow§a_rd__,s1itigatiori_ expenses. Since
petitioner –‘_’tvcdfe notthnvbotliered to participate in this
proceeding she any litigation expenses and
in View of the order.”-aifowirig this revision petition and
.,petitioriv»–..fi.led under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in
»C:,Mi_sc._1: i1 respondent –~ husband, who is petitioner
aiierein is to seek refund of arrears of maintenance,
V _ which is._’in’déposit in this Court.
Sd/-r
IUDGE