APAN150005422019
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::
RAYADURG.
Present: Ms.MYAKAM RAMYA,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayadurg.
Tuesday, this the 25 th day of February, 2025.
Maintenance Case No. 13 of 2019.
Between:
1. Smt. Aruna, Wife of Thimma Reddy, Hindu, aged 30 years, Housewife,
2. V.Hareesh, Son of Thimma Reddy, aged 5 years, Minor represented by his guardian and natural mother i.e., first petitioner Smt. Aruna.
Both are residing at B.T.P.Dam Village, Gummagatta Mandal,
Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh.
…..Petitioners.
And
Thimma Reddy, Son of Sharanappa, Hindu, aged 35 years, Senior
Mechanic, residing at 14th Ward, Subhash Nagara, Sandur Town and Taluk,
Ballari District, Karnataka State.
….Respondent.
* * * * *
This case come up on 11-02-2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.J.A.Vahab Rahiman , Advocate for the petitioners and Sri
S.Raghavendra , Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both parties
Page 2 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following :
:: O R D E R ::
1. This petition is filed by the first petitioner on behalf of second petitioner against the respondent claiming maintenance for a sum of 20,000/-₹ (Rupees Twenty thousand only) per month towards their maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows :
a) The 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 19.11.2009 at Sri Balanjineya
Swamy Devalayam, B.T.Project Village, Gummagatta Mandalam,
Anantapuram District as per customs and usages prevailing in their community. During the course of wedlock they are begotten one male child i.e., 2nd petitioner herein. At the time of marriage, the 1st petitioner’s father has gave cash of ₹1,00,000/- as a dowry and spent ₹2,00,000/- as marriage expenses. After the marriage, the 1st petitioner joined with her husband/respondent and went to Sondoor
Town to lead happy marital life and they lead happy marital life for a period of one year. Thereafter, the respondent and his parents started to harass the 1st petitioner both physically and mentally for want of
additional dowry, as her father gave meager dowry at the time of
marriage and the panchayathi also held in between the parents of 1st petitioner and respondent and that the 1st petitioner’s father gave cash of ₹50,000/- and gold ornaments to the respondent and his parents.
Page 3 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
b) When the 1st petitioner’s father gave additional dowry, the respondent and his parents are kept quite for few months and thereafter again respondent and his parents started to harass the 1st petitioner with a demand to get additional from her parents for the respondent and his enjoyments. Whenever the petitioners are become indisposed the respondent never gave any medical aid. Further, the 1st petitioner is very cautiously lead her life with the respondent’s house at Sondoor.
Whenever she has been talking with neighbours for her dire necessities, the respondent started to suspected the character of the 1st petitioner and for that reason he started to beat her in night time indiscriminately. Further, the respondent and his parents sold out all the gold articles of the 1st petitioner and even they never provided food, clothes to the petitioners. The 1st petitioner never tolerated the harassment of the respondent and his parents and came to
B.T.P.village of Gummagatta Mandal and gave a complaint against the respondent and his parents and sister at Gummagatta Police
Station under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and the same was registered as a case in
Cr.No.72/2012, the said case was numbered as CC No.225/2012 on the file of this Court. During pendency of the said case, the elders of
B.T.P village namely Golla Thimanna, Boya Rangappa and Harijana
Kistappa tried to pacify the matter and they resolved the 1st petitioner to withdraw the above criminal case and she is residing at B.T.P village and the respondent also obey the same. The respondent is working as Senior Mechanic in B.K.G. Mines at Sondoor, Bellary
District and every fifteen days once he came to the village to met with 1st petitioner. Subsequently, one male son born at B.T.P village on
Page 4 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
09.12.2014 i.e., 2nd petitioner herein. Thereafter, the respondent addicted with bad habits like consuming alcohol, playing matka and playing cards and spent entire huge money for his enjoyments.
Further, the 1st petitioner is number of time requested the respondent to lead respectable life in the society. But, he did not heed the words of the 1st petitioner and he never provide minimum necessities to the petitioners such as food, clothes etc., The petitioners are very difficult to lead their life with the respondent and sometimes 1st petitioner get money from her father for food to her and her son. Further, the respondent has filed a Matrimonial case No.5/2017 on the file of the
Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Court, Kudligi and due to financial crises, the 1st petitioner never attended the said case. Thus, the respondent completely neglected to maintain the petitioners, who are every justification to stay separately.
The petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and have to depend solely on the mercy of her parents. Further, the respondent is working as Senior Mechanic in BKG Mines at Sondoor, Bellary District and also getting income of ₹40,000/- to ₹50,000/- per month and he has capacity to provide maintenance to the petitioners. Therefore, the respondent may be directed to pay a sum of 20,000/- (Rupees₹
Twenty thousand only) per month to the petitioners towards their maintenance, otherwise they will suffer serious loss and hardship.
3. The respondent filed detailed counter by denying all the contentions in the petition, except marital relationship with the first petitioner and they gave birth to second petitioner. He took the following contentions:
a) In fact, the respondent married the 1st petitioner with love and affection and also he himself bear the marriage expenses nearly
Page 5 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
₹50,000/-. Further, the respondent presented gold ornaments (2 thulas, angles kammalu, gundlu and plats), worth of ₹50,000/- and ₹10,000/- cash towards sarees to the 1st petitioner and this fact is also very well known to the 1st petitioner and her close relatives. After nuptials the 1st petitioner joined with the respondent at his place. After some days of their marriage, 1st the petitioner stayed with the respondent only for a few days only, and she is a puppet in the hand of her mother and she is dancing to the tunes of her mother, at the instigation of her parents, the 1st petitioner started to harass him with each and every reason or cause. The respondent tried to convince her on number of occasions as he is being the son to look after his parents, his widow sister and her minor son. Meanwhile, the 1st petitioner got pregnancy after one year, but she is not even informed him about her pregnancy. The respondent after coming to know the pregnancy, he and his family members requested the 1st petitioner to perform “Seemantham”, but she bluntly refused for the same.
Further, the respondent is having old aged parents and widow sister and her minor son and he is younger son to his parents and he has to look after them and entire family depends upon him and he is doing coolie work in mechanic shed and getting ₹200/- per day, if he went for coolie works.
b) Further, since the date of joining by the 1st petitioner with the respondent, she used to go to her parents village and stayed days together and she not at all interested to lead matrimonial life with the respondent at Sandur town and taluk. The 1st petitioner herself deserted and willfully neglected the respondent to lead happy marital relationship. In spite of his best efforts also the 1st petitioner did not
Page 6 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
change her attitude towards the respondent. Further, she gave false complaint to the Station House Officer, Gummagatta Police Station and registered a case in Cr.No.72/2012 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.225/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the respondent and his parents and sister and the same was acquitted by this Court on 13.03.2014. Further, the 1st petitioner is doing tailoring work and also getting monthly income of ₹10,000/- and she is having landed property to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents at B.T.P village of Gummagatta mandal. Hence, she is having more than sufficient income to maintain herself. Further, the respondent never neglected the petitioners and never failed to perform his duties. In fact, the 1st petitioner not allowed him for reunion to lead marital life. At present the respondent has no work due to drought conditions, and COVID-19 and he is residing along with his parents and look after them at Sandur town and taluk.
Further, the 1st petitioner is not entitled to seek any maintenance as she is doing tailoring work and she is capable to maintain herself as she is getting a monthly income of ₹10,000/- and moreover she willfully neglected the respondent. Hence, there is no valid grounds to allow this unjust petition and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
4. During enquiry, the 1st petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and also got examined her father as PW.2 and Exhibits P1 and P2 are marked on her behalf.
5. On the other hand, the respondent himself got examined as RW.1 and no documentary evidence has been adduced on his behalf.
Page 7 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent. They have almost reiterated the contents of petition and counter respectively.
7. Perused the entire record.
8. Now the points that arises for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the respondent had neglected and refused to maintain
the petitioners Nos’.1 and 2 without sufficient and reasonable cause?
ii. Whether the petitioners have no sufficient means to maintain
themselves?
iii. Whether the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain
the petitioners?
iv. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim maintenance from
the respondent, if so, to what extent?
9.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the evidence of
PW.1, supported by PW.2 as well as the admissions of RW.1 clinchingly establishes that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that the petitioner No.2 is minor son of respondent and the 1st petitioner respectively. Further, the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain them, but he intentionally neglected and refused to maintain them without any justifiable cause and therefore, the petition may be allowed by granting maintenance, as prayed for.
10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the evidence of RW.1 clearly shows the first petitioner herself left his society, on her will and wish, without any sufficient cause and so, the first
Page 8 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance. Further, the respondent is attending coolie works and getting meager income, he has to looking after his old aged mother, his widow sister and her minor son with his meager earnings only and so, he is not having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners and thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed in respect of the claim of the first petitioner.
11.In view of these rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.
12. POINT NO. I:
In order to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure
Code, it is the foremost and initial burden of the first petitioner to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and second petitioner is minor son through the respondent. To prove the same, the petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked
Exhibits P.1 and P.2 on her behalf. Exhibit P.1 is the original wedding card of the 1st petitioner and respondent. Exhibit P.2 is the marriage positive photographs (2 in Nos.) of the 1st petitioner and respondent.
Exhibit P.1 discloses that the marriage of first petitioner was proposed to be performed with the respondent on 19.11.2009 at Sri
Balanjaneyaswamy Devalayam, B.T.Project Village, Gummagatta
Mandal in the presence of both parities elders and relatives. Further, the respondent admitted that the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife and the 2nd petitioner is their child.
13.On coming to the evidence of PW.1, it is just replica of her petition and affidavit. It shows that the said marriage was arranged by elders and their
Page 9 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
marriage solemnized on 19.11.2009 at Sri Balanjineya Swamy
Devalayam, B.T.Project village. At the time of marriage, her father gave cash of ₹1,00,000/- as dowry and also spent ₹2,00,000/- as marriage expenses. After the marriage, they lived happily for a period of one year at Sondoor Town and due to the wedlock, the 2nd petitioner was born.
Afterwards, the respondent and his parents started to harass her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry and a panchayath also held between them and that her father also gave cash of ₹50,000/- and gold ornaments to the respondent and his parents. After few months, again the respondent and her in-laws started to harass her and demanded to get additional dowry from her parents. Her evidence further goes to show that whenever she has been talking with neighbours for her dire necessities, the respondent suspected her character and also used beat her for that reason in night hours indiscriminately. Due to unbearable harassment made by the respondent and his parents she came to B.T.P village and gave complaint against the respondent and his parents and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.72/2012 under
Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and the said case was numbered as CC No.225/2012 on the file of this Court. During pendency of the criminal case the elders tried to pacify the matter and they resolved that she shall withdraw the above criminal case and rejoin with the respondent and residing at B.T.P village and the respondent also obey the same. Her evidence further goes to show that the respondent is working as Senior Mechanic in BKG Mines at Sondoor,
Bellary District and every fifteen days came to her village to met her.
During their wedlock, 2nd petitioner was born on 09.12.2014. Thereafter, the respondent addicted with bad habits like consuming alcohol, playing
Page 10 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
matka and cards and also spent entire money for his enjoyments and she requested him to change his attitude and to lead respectful life in society, but he did not heed her words. Subsequently, he filed
Matrimonial case No.5/2017 on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kudligi and due to financial crises she never attended the said case. Later, the respondent completely neglected to maintain the petitioners, who are every justification to stay separately and they have no source of income to maintain themselves and they depend on the mercy of her parents, who are also poor.
Further, the respondent is working as Senior Mechanic in BKG Mines at
Sondoor, Bellary District and getting income of ₹40,000/- to ₹50,000/- per month and he has capacity to provide maintenance to them. The respondent has willfully neglected to maintain herself and her son and he is having sufficient sources of income. Being husband and father of male child, the respondent is duty bound to maintain them. Hence, grant maintenance a sum of 2₹ 0,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) per month to the petitioners from the respondent towards maintenance of 1st petitioner and her son.
14.During the cross examination, PW.1 admitted that her father having landed property to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents and she has been doing tailoring works. She has not filed salary certificate of respondent before the Court to show that the respondent is working in BKG Mines at
Sanduru of Bellary District. She further admitted that the respondent is having old aged mother and widow sister and he is duty bound to maintain and looked after his aged mother and widow sister. The respondent has filed HMOP.No.5/2017 before the Hon’ble Senior Civil
Page 11 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
Judge’s Court, Karnataka State and the same was exparte divorce
orders was passed by the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kudligi.
15.In support of her contentions, the 1st petitioner also got examined her father as PW.2. His evidence supports the version of PW.1 in all aspects.
So, according to PW.2 the respondent himself completely neglected the 1st petitioner and her minor son and even he has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners, he failed to provide minimum necessities such as food, shelter, clothes and medical expenses so, he has bounden duty to pay maintenance to the petitioners. During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that he is having landed property to an extent of Ac.6.00 cents and doing cultivation.
16.On the other hand, in order to prove his contention, the respondent got examined himself as RW.1 and no documentary evidence has been adduced on his behalf. His evidence goes in accordance with the contents of his counter, as referred above. The respondent married PW.1 with love and affection and he also bear the marriage expenses nearly ₹50,000/- and also presented gold ornaments worth of ₹50,000/- and ₹10,000/- towards expenses to purchase sarees. After the marriage,
PW.1 joined with him and stayed for a few days only and he never harassed her at any point of time. PW.1 herself harassed him with each and every reason and he tried to convince her on number of occasions as he being a younger son to look after his parents as well as his widow sister and her minor son. Meanwhile, she got pregnancy after one year and she is not even informed him the same. Then, he and his family members are requested PW.1 to perform “Seemantham”, but she refused the same. Further, he is having old aged parents and widow
Page 12 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
sister and he has to look after them and entire family depends upon him and he is attending coolie works in mechanic shed and getting ₹200/- per day if he went for coolie works. His evidence further goes to show that since the date of joining the 1st petitioner/PW.1 used to go to her parents village and stayed there days together. PW.1 is not at all interested to lead matrimonial life with him at Sandur town and taluk. Further, PW.1 herself deserted him willfully neglected him to lead happy marital relationship. In spite of his best efforts, PW.1 did not change her attitude towards him and she also filed a false case against him and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.72/2012 and numbered as CC
No.225/2012 under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act against him and his parents and sister, which was acquitted by the Court on 13.03.2014. Further, PW.1 is doing tailoring work and she is getting a monthly income of ₹10,000/- and also having landed property to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents at B.T.P village of Gummagatta Mandal and so, she is having more than sufficient income to maintain herself. He never neglected the petitioners and never failed to perform his duties. In fact,
PW.1 not allowed him and she herself not join with him and she is not entitled to seek any maintenance as she is having sufficient means to maintain herself. According to RW.1, the first petitioner herself deserted him and living with her parents prior to filing of the instant petition.
Further, he admitted during their wedlock the second petitioner is born through himself and first petitioner, but he has to looking after the welfare of his old aged mother and widow sister and her son with his meager earnings and so, he has no duty bounded to pay any maintenance to the petitioners.
Page 13 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
17.During cross-examination, RW.1 himself admitted that he is having one own house and the same was standing in the name of his mother. He has filed a divorce OP petition before Kudlige Court and got exparte divorce order. He also admitted that daily he has been getting income of ₹250/- from his mechanic work and did not filed any documentary proof to show that the 1st petitioner getting monthly income of ₹10,000/- from her tailoring work. But, he did not file any documentary evidence to show about the source of income of the 1st petitioner stated to be earned by her. It is clear that the 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd petitioner is son of the respondent.
18.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of
PW.1, supported by PW.2 and admissions of RW.1 clinchingly establishes that the first petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent, during their wedlock she gave birth to the second petitioner and the same was admitted by the respondent during his cross- examination. Later, the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners without any sufficient cause, but he intentionally refused to maintain them and also obtained exparte divorce without giving any permanent alimony to the petitioners. He further argued that respondent is in hale and healthy condition and also doing mechanic work. Further, it is a bounden duty of husband to maintain his wife and children and thus, the petition may be allowed.
19.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the evidence of RW.1 establishes that the first petitioner is his legally wedded wife and the second petitioner was born through the first petitioner and respondent, but the 1st petitioner herself deserted him and
Page 14 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
she also doing tailoring works and earning income of ₹10,000/- and so, the question of maintenance does not arise. He further submitted that he has bounden to look after his old aged mother and widow sister with his meager earnings and he no sufficient means to maintain the petitioners thus, the petition may be dismissed.
20. On summing up of the entire evidence, the unshaken and consistent evidence of PW.1, supported by PW.2 clinchingly establishes that PW.1 was subjected to harassment at her matrimonial house and so, she has filed a criminal case against him and his parents in Cr.No.72/2012 and the same numbered as CC No.225/2012 and ended as acquitted on 13.03.2014. Further, the respondent has also filed a divorce petition in
HMOP.No.5 of 2017 on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court,
Kudligi and the same was exparte decreed. Even RW.1 also admitted the said fact. Further, the respondent himself admitted that he does not file any petition regarding restitution of conjugal life against the 1st petitioner. So, viewed from any angle, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 which clinchingly establishes that PW.1 left the society of respondent, due to harassment made by the respondent and his parents.
21.Even though, the respondent took specific contention that the first petitioner herself deserted his society, nothing was elicited to prove the same. His further contention is that he has to looking after his old aged mother and widow sister and the 1st petitioner’s owned Ac.3.00 of landed property and also doing tailoring works getting income of 1₹ 0,000/- per month. Further, admitted that he is attending coolie works in mechanic shed. It is evident that he has sufficient means to maintain the
Page 15 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
petitioners. Further, the respondent even did not choose to examine any of neighbours of B.T.P village to show that the 1st petitioner stated to be earning such income from the tailoring works. In such circumstances, in the absence of any independent and cogent material to support the contentions of the respondent, the Court feels that the self-serving testimony of respondent (RW.1) itself is not sufficient to prove his contention. Further, no women will leave the society of her husband, for the sake of petty issues, unless she is subjected to physical and mental harassment. Furthermore, nothing was elicited from the evidence of
PW.1 that the respondent paid any amount or permanent alimony to the petitioners for their maintenance, since the date of separation. It is settled principle of law that since the basis for holding the husband liable for the maintenance of his wife is the notion that there is a continuous obligation upon the husband to support and maintain his wife, whenever he fails to do so, he is deemed to have neglected her. Thus, proof of an actual refusal to maintain is not necessary. Similarly, refusal to maintain the wife need not be express but may be inferred from the conduct of the husband. Moreover, the respondent also filed a divorce petition in
HMOP.No.5 of 2017 against the 1st petitioner and therefore, it can be
inferred that husband impliedly refused to maintain the petitioners. All these circumstances clinchingly establish that the respondent has intentionally refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners.
22. For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that the petitioners are able to establish that the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain them. The respondent failed to establish that the first petitioner left his society without any justifiable reason or cause, as contended by him.
Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners.
Page 16 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
23. POINT NO.II:
It is the contention of the petitioners that they have no financial capacity to maintain themselves. There is no reference about the financial capacity of 1st petitioner, to ascertain whether she can maintain herself and second petitioner. Though, the evidence of PW.1 shows that the petitioners have no source of income for their maintenance. The respondent also did not choose to examine any neighbours of the first petitioner to prove that the 1st petitioner is doing tailoring works and getting income of ₹10,000/- per month and also having sufficient means to maintain herself and 2nd petitioner. Not even a suggestion was put to
PW.1 with regard to her financial capacity to elicit either she has sufficient means or he is having no capacity to maintain the petitioners, except her parents owned Ac.3.00 of landed property. But, no documentary evidence was being filed before the Court such as survey number, extent to ascertain whether the 1st petitioner’s parents are having landed or house property. So, the Court finds no material to disbelieve the version of PW.1 that the first petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself and her children i.e., petitioner No.2.
Admittedly, petitioner No.2 is a minor. So, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are able to establish that they have no financial capacity to maintain themselves. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners.
24. POINT NO. III:
It is the contention of the petitioners, as reiterated in the evidence of
PW.1, supported by PW.2 that the respondent is working as Senior
Mechanic at BKG Mines at Sondoor, Bellary District and he has
Page 17 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
considerable property, money and sound means to pay monthly maintenance to them. The respondent denied the same and contended that he has been hale and healthy. Except, putting suggestion that the respondent has owning landed property and one house standing in the name of his mother, which was denied by RW.1, nothing was elicited by the petitioners from their evidence that the respondent has been owning landed or house property and earning of such amounts as mentioned in the petition as well as her evidence.Moreover, it is settled principle of law that Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial legislation to prevent destitution and vagrancy of wives/children by providing speedy interim maintenance from able-bodied husbands. The husband has a sacrosanct duty to maintain his wife and children, which can only be avoided on legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. Therefore, Courts cannot reject a wife's maintenance claim based on oral submissions of the husband's lawyer, if her evidence of harassment/neglect is unrebutted.
When the respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent is hale and healthy and also attending mechanical coolie works. Thus, it can be safely held that the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners.
Accordingly, the point No.3 is answered in favour of the petitioners.
25. POINT NO. IV:
In view of the above discussion and findings in Point No’s. I to III, the petitioners are able to establish that 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd petitioner is the minor daughter of the respondent, the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners, but he had
Page 18 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
intentionally refused and neglected to maintain them without any justifiable reason or cause. They also established that they have no sufficient means to maintain themselves as first petitioner is living in her parents’ house with their mercy only. The respondent failed to disprove the contentions of the petitioners. So, the Court holds that the petitioners are entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent.
26. In the case in hand, the petitioners claimed 20₹,000/- per month to the petitioners towards their maintenance by contending that the respondent is working as Senior Mechanic and also getting income of ₹40,000/- to ₹50,000/- and he has considerable property, money and sound means.
But, they failed to establish the quantum of income on said mechanic work and immovable property said to be earned by the respondent. Even they failed to adduce the description of the said house property such as door number, exact location of property to ascertain whether the respondent is really getting income from the said mechanic work and earning upon those house property as pleaded by the petitioners or not.
In the present case on hand, the first petitioner is claimed 20₹,000/- per month towards their maintenance by contending that the respondent is working as Senior Mechanic in BKG Mines, Sondoor, Bellary and having considerable means and sound. It is well settled law that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes like Section 23 r/w 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Act,
Section 24 or 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, or Section 18(1) of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act etc. If maintenance is awarded to the petitioner in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the
Page 19 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
subsequent proceeding, the Court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the petitioner. Hence, this Court has perused the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the 1st petitioner and the respondent in accordance with the guidelines of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha’s case 1. No previously
instituted proceedings relating to maintenance are pending as per the affidavit filed by the first petitioner. Further, the affidavit of Assets and
Liabilities discloses that there are no sources of income for the first petitioner to maintain herself. Moreover, it is well settled law that the first and foremost duty of the husband is to maintain the wife and the minor children. He may beg, borrow or steal. In fact, the maintenance claimed by the 1st petitioner is exorbitant as the respondent is working as Senior
Mechanic in BKG Mines at Sondoor without filing any documentary proof to show that he is getting income of ₹ 40,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- per month as pleaded by them in their petition and he is stated to be looking after welfare of his aged mother and widow sister. At the same time, the 2nd petitioner is being minor and he has to studied. Therefore, upon considering the above facts and circumstances, the Court inclined to grant 3₹ ,000/- per month to the first petitioner and 7₹ ,000/- per month to the second petitioner towards their maintenance. Accordingly, this point is answered.
27.In the result, this petition is allowed with arrears of maintenance and costs as follows, by directing the respondent:
1AIR 2021 SC 569.
Page 20 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
a) to pay monthly maintenance of 3₹ ,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the first petitioner from the date of this petition i.e., 10.06.2019;
b) to pay monthly maintenance of 7₹ ,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only) to the second petitioner from the date of this petition i.e., 10.06.2019 till he attains age of majority;
c) to pay arrears of maintenance from the date of filing the petition, till the date of this Order, within three months from the date of this order i.e., 25.02.2025;
d) to pay costs of 1,0₹00/- for filing of this case;and
e) to pay the maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month.
f) Upon failure of the respondent to pay the arrears of maintenance and costs, within the respective time periods stipulated by the Court, the petitioners are at liberty to get the same recovered through the process of Law.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25 thday of February, 2025.
Sd/- Ms.MYAKAM RAMYA,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayadurg.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioners:
P.W.1: Aruna.
P.W.2: Vadde Chinna Peddanna.
For Respondent:
R.W.1: Thimma Reddy.
Page 21 of 21
JMFC, Rayadurg. MC No. 13 of 2019
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Petitioners:
Exhibit P.1: Original wedding card of the 1st petitioner and respondent. Exhibit P.2: Two marriage positive photographs of the 1st petitioner and respondent.
For Respondent :
-Nil-
Sd/- Ms.MYAKAM RAMYA,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayadurg.