AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—This appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decree dated 29.9.2007 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Malavalli in O.S. No. 72/2003 and dated 5.9.2009 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Malavalli in RA. No. 12/2007.
The facts of the case in brief are that the marriage between the first appellant and the first respondent was solemnized on 29.5.1997. The second respondent is born in their wedlock on 12.2.1999. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the first appellant respectively. After heaping the physical and mental torture on the first respondent demanding payment of additional dowry, the appellants drew her out of the matrimonial home. She filed the suit for maintenance. The Trial Court awarded the monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the respondents. It also awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards the litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants filed R-A. No. 12/2007, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court ay its judgment dated 5.9.2009. On suffering, the concurrent judgments and decrees, this appeal is instituted.
Sri Somashekar Kasimath, the teamed counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have erred in fastening the liability on the husband''s parents also. The learned Counsel submits that only the husband is legally liable to maintain his wife. He further submits that the petitioner has no income of his own and all the property stands in the name of his parents and the first appellant only works as a coolie and ekes his livelihood.
My reading of the impugned judgments reveal that the averments of the respondents that the appellants are growing mulberry, paddy said banana, etc. is not demolished/at all. The Trial Court has disbelieved the ostensible offer made by the appellants to take back the respondents, because the appellants have not participated in the conciliation proceedings and as they have not paid a pie towards the maintenance during the pendency of the suit proceedings. The Trial Court has given weightage to vital aspect of the matter that the second respondent-plaintiff is studying in the school and the appellants have not been paying anything towards her educational fee, food, etc.
The Trial Court has taken into account the vast extent of the land being possessed by the appellants. It has taken into account the economic capabilities of the appellants and requirements of the respondents, etc. The awarding of Rs. 1,000/- towards monthly maintenance cannot be said to be arbitrary or exorbitant by any yardstick.
The first appellant-husband cannot be permitted to evade or avoid his liability to pay maintenance by ensuring the joint ownership of the lands.
The First Appellate Court has considered the deposition of the first appellant that he took the first respondent to the Mandya Government Hospital where her abortion took place. The First Appellate Court, based on the evidence placed on the record, has come to the conclusion that the version of the first respondent that the abortion took place on account of the torture inflicted on her by the appellants is supported by the admission of the first appellant that he took her to the Government Hospital, Mandya, where her abortion took place. The conclusions arrived by both the Courts below are absolutely sustainable and balanced. I do not see any questions of law, much less substantial question of law in this appeal Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Now that the main matter itself is dismissed, nothing survives for any consideration of Misc.Civil. 19156/2009 for stay. The same stands dismissed as having become unnecessary.