18 Jan 2121
Case : T. Ramesh v. Mrs. Ranjana and Ors. R.P.F.C. No. 136 of 2013
Court : Karnataka High Court
Bench : Justice H. B. Prabhakara Sastry
Decided on : 18 Jan 2121
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Brief Facts and Procedural History
1. The present Petitioner (husband) or the respondent (Wife) were married on 03.11.2020 according to the Hindu rites and custom. On 16.01.2004, Respondent no 2 (daughter) was born out of this wedlock. The wife and Daughter have driven away from the matrimonial home due to the acts of the husband and his family Many settlements were held between them and also the respondent agree to take care of his wife and daughter, but after some time, he used to harass and ill-treat her. Afterwards, the wife and daughter were constrained to live separately
2. Later, the Wife and the Daughter filed a petition in Family Court and contended that her husband is having sufficient income but has not been maintaining the family and subjected the wife and daughter to mental and physical harassment. The wife seeks maintenance of Rs not less than 12000 pm. The husband denied all the allegations. The Family court allowed the petition by order dated 12.11.2013 and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 10000 p.m. The Husband challenged the above and preferred a Revision Petition.
The Issues of the Case
Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Family court suffers from any irregularity or irregularity or the woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if she possesses any educational qualification?
The Observations of the Court:
1. The Honourable Karnataka High Court referred to sub-section 1(a) and 1(b) of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and held that mere possession of the educational qualification cannot be considered as that woman is able to maintain herself unless there are cogent pieces of evidence to show that the wife is resigning from her job to compel her husband to pay her maintenance. The Honourable High Court observed that as there is no oral and documentary evidence so it cannot be presumed that the wife has resigned to compel her husband for maintenance.
2. The Honourable Karnataka High Court observed that the argument of the petitioner that he is not a salaried person working in any establishment or running his own business is not acceptable. It was established in the cross-examination that he was running a private establishment and also earning a monthly salary. The Honourable High Court also observed that it is also not proved that the income is lesser than what he was earning in the previous company or an inference cannot be drawn that he is a practising advocate so he has no source of income to pay maintenance to her wife.
3. The Honourable Karnataka High Court observed that the cases which were filed against the husband. Thus, it cannot be considered that the case filed by the respondent is frivolous when the suit is decided on the basis of merit. With this, The Honourable High Court also observed that the conduct of the respondents (Wife) to harass the petitioner is not acceptable.
4. The Honourable Karnataka High Court also observed that as stated by the petitioner in the revision petition he is ready to take care of his child but the Honourable High Court will not permit him to discontinuance the maintenance which he is required to be paid to his wife or to the child who is unable to maintain herself and which is proved also.
The Decision Held by the Court
The Honourable High Court held that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court dated 12.11.2013. The Revision Petition stands dismissed.