AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan Shantanagoudar
Sri. V.M. Biradar, learned counsel takes notice for respondent in RPFC No. 578/2012.
Heard.
Sri. Abdul Khadir Jilani the petitioner in RPFC No. 564/2012 is the husband of Smt. Yasmin (petitioner in RPFC No. 578/2012.) The parties will be referred to as husband and wife during the course of order.
The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The wife is now living with her parents in her parental house as she is neglected by her husband. The records reveal that during her pregnancy she was kicked by her husband and consequently there was miscarriage. In addition to miscarriage, the wife has suffered paralysis stroke because of the aforementioned incident caused by the husband. The wife filed maintenance petition. The Courts below on evaluation of the material on record has awarded Rs. 6,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance in favour of the wife.
RPFC No. 564/2012 is filed by the husband praying for reduction of maintenance. Both the petitions are heard together. RPFC No. 578/2012 is filed by wife for enhancement of maintenance.
The husband is doing business in soda drinks at Bagalkot. The wife is bed-ridden and is a paralysis patient. She was brought to the Trial Court on a chair lifted by two persons. She is unable to walk and to do her routine activities. Even according to the husband the wife may have to spend Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month towards her medical expenses. Apart from the same she would have to be looked after by another person which means that the wife is totally dependant on another person throughout her life. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 6,000/- awarded cannot be said to be on the higher side more particularly when the wife will have to spend almost the same amount for her medical expenses and for attendance charges. Though it is the case for enhancement of maintenance, the hands of this Court are curtailed under the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the fact that the husband is doing business in soda drinks (petty business). Though he has got a residential house, there is nothing on record to show that he has got higher income than about Rs. 15,000/- per month. He has to look after his parents also. Even if this Court awards maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the wife, the husband would not be in a position to pay the same. He will have to be behind the bars and consequently the wife will suffer. Moreover, it is brought to the notice of the Court by Sri. S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the respondent-wife that the husband (Sri. Abdulhadir) has remarried and has got two children. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, interest of justice will be met if the award of maintenance made by the Family Court is confirmed. Accordingly both the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the petitions stand dismissed.