Kalyan Kumar vs Geeta

Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard Sri. Santhosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S.M. Kalwad, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

Order passed by Family Court, Belgaum in Crl.Misc. No. 292/2011 dated 06.08.20103 awarding a maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife during her life time from the date of petition that is 11.07.2011 is under challenge by petitioner-husband.

It is the contention of Sri. Rawoot, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that when respondent herself has refused to reside with the joint family of petitioner and insisting to make separate arrangement for her residence for which the petitioner was not able to make good the desire of respondent, she deserted the petitioner without there being any reasonable cause and as such finding recorded by the family court that petitioner has declined to maintain respondent even though respondent was ready and willing to reside with him is an erroneous finding which has resulted in great prejudice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that family court has ignored the fact that respondent has disagreed to join the petitioner without there being any reasonable cause. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order passed by Family court.

Per contra, Sri. S.M. Kalwad, learned counsel for respondent would support the order passed by family court.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the order under challenge it is noticed that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties being that of husband and wife. Marriage was solemnized on 10.08.2009. Wife has contended before the Family Court that her husband, his mother, brother and sister started harassing her and she was forced to leave matrimonial home. It is also contended that her husband used to ill-treat her at the instigation of his mother and brother. She further contended she was treated as a maid servant in the house and when she was assaulted physically and beaten up she went to her sister's house at Sankeshwar and took treatment and thereafter she went to her parents house. She has stated that despite her efforts to join her husband has been in vain and he refused to take care of her. As such petition was filed seeking maintenance.

Before the Family court parties have tendered their evidence. On evaluation of evidence Family court has awarded maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-husband is working as a Village Accountant in Government of Maharashtra as per Exhibit P-6 salary certificate issued for the month of May 2011 and he has been drawing salary of Rs. 16,205/-. Though it was contended that his mother had filed a petition for maintenance against him and family court has noticed that the said case was an outcome of internal arrangement to stave off the claim of wife i.e., respondent herein. It has been noticed by the Family court that compromise petition Exhibit R-3 and the order passed in said case filed by mother of petitioner-husband at Exhibit R-4 is a case got filed by petitioner herein by his mother against himself and had got it compromised. It is also elicited in the cross examination of RW-2 that mother of petitioner-husband is residing with him. If it is so there was no necessity for the mother of petitioner to file a maintenance petition seeking for an order of maintenance. Because of these reasons Family court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that petitioner-herein had got filed the petition and agreed to pay maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to his mother who is residing with him which would clearly establish that it is an outcome devised or engineered for the purpose of staving off the claim that would be made by his wife and rightly so. I am of the considered view that Family court has rightly taken into consideration the totality of the circumstances of the case to award maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife which order does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever calling for interference at the hands of this court.

Hence, I find no merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed and order passed by Family court in Criminal Misc. 292/2011 dated 06.08.2013 is hereby affirmed.