Kaustubh Kalyan Kulkarni vs Gauri Kaustubh Kulkarni

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—Respondent in Crl.Misc. No. 7/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Belgaum has come up in this petition seeking revision of the common order dated 02.04.2014 passed in Crl.Misc. Nos. 7/2012 and 102/2012.

The brief facts leading to this petition are as under:

Petitioner herein is the husband and respondent herein is the wife and their marriage was solemnized on 25.11.2008. The points which are not in dispute are that, petitioner husband is a qualified engineer having B.E. and M.S. degree, whereas respondent-wife is holder of a master degree in Pharmacy. It is stated that the maiden name of respondent-wife was Deepa Burli and after her marriage with the petitioner herein, the same was changed to Gouri Kulkarni. Though it is stated that marriage is consummated, there are no issues in the wedlock. It is seen that the petitioner and respondent were living together for sometime and thereafter, due to difference in opinion, they started living separately and there is no attempt either on the part of the petitioner-husband or respondent-wife to seek restitution of conjugal rights.

However, the records would disclose that the petitioner-husband has initiated proceedings in P.A. No. 450/2011 before the Family Court at Pune seeking decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, i.e., decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The said proceeding is initiated on 10.05.2011. Thereafter, the proceeding in Crl.Misc.7/2012 is filed on 04.01.2012 under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and also for consequential relief of cost of the said proceeding and other related reliefs. It is seen that the proceeding in Crl.Misc. No. 7/2012 is contested by the husband who is the petitioner herein on the ground that respondent herein is gainfully employed and that she has independent income of her own and it was also contended that the petition averments that respondent herein who is petitioner in Crl.Misc. No. 7/2012 as unemployed, housewife having no avocation, no income as stated in the said petition is false to her knowledge and she has deliberately suppressed the said facts to secure an order of maintenance from the Court below.

In the said proceedings, the evidence was recorded on behalf of the petitioner and respondent. It is seen that, an application was filed by the husband in the said proceeding seeking production of document of Rani Channamma College of Pharmacy, where he alleged that his wife was working as on the date of filing the application. It is seen that that the said application was allowed and the Principal of the said college was directed to produce the particulars regarding the employment of respondent-wife Mrs. Gouri Kulkarni. It is stated that incidentally, the said document of her employment was produced by the petitioner in Crl.Misc. No. 7/2012 herself, for the reason that she was the Principal of the said college, which indicated that she was permanent employee of the said college discharging her duties as Principal and drawing salary of more than Rs. 20,000/- p.m. It is seen that with these evidence available on record, the Court below proceeded to allow the petition filed by the wife under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. holding that the petitioner is not able to maintain herself, hence, she needs to be provided with maintenance. Accordingly, allowed the petition filed by her awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- as prayed in the said petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband has come up in this petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sofar as respondent is concerned, though notice is duly served, she remained ex-parte. The notice that was issued in this proceeding was returned as ''not claimed''. Further, the notice which was sent to the respondent through her counsel was duly served and she did not appear before this Court. Hence, this Court to be cautious in appreciating the grounds urged in this petition, summoned the entire records from the Family Court, Belgaum and went through the same. On appreciation of the same, it is seen that the respondent herein who is petitioner in Crl.Misc.7/2012 was gainfully employed as Assistant Professor in Sri. Rani Channamma College of Pharmacy even as on the date when she filed the aforesaid petition for the purpose of claiming maintenance. In spite of the fact that she was already working, she has sworn to false pleadings in the petition contending that she is unemployed, she has no income of her own to maintain herself and that she is not capable to maintain herself, hence, she is entitled to seek maintenance and adduced evidence accordingly. It is only at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1, when the application was filed seeking certificate regarding employment status of the petitioner in Rani Channamma College of Pharmacy, the petitioner herself who is the Principal of the said college had to produce the same to show that she was working as Principal in the said college drawing salary of more than Rs. 20,000/- p.m. With this, it is clearly seen that the intention of the petitioner in seeking maintenance is false and erroneous by suppressing the fact that she was gainfully employed at the relevant point of time. At this juncture, this Court also would like to refer to the provision of Section 125(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

"Section 125(1)(a): If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain - his wife, unable to maintain herself, or"

This clearly indicates that, the legally wedded wife, who is unable to maintain herself, when she is neglected by the husband, can seek maintenance under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, though the respondent-wife is claiming that she is neglected by her husband and that she does not have sufficient means to maintain herself, the same is contrary to the facts on record. The records disclose that she is gainfully employed as Assistant Professor as on the date of filing of the petition for maintenance. Though the said document is available on record, the Court below has failed to appreciate the same. It has also ignored the intent and purpose of Section 125(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and further presumed that all applications by wife seeking maintenance from her husband should be allowed, such presumption is erroneous, more particularly, when the wife has failed to establish that she is not able to or incapable of maintaining herself and fail to establish that she is in need of maintenance. Hence, in the instant case, awarding maintenance to wife either in a sum of Rs. 15,000/- or any other sum does not stand to reason. Accordingly, petition filed by the respondent-husband in Crl.Misc. No. 102/2012 needs to be allowed. Consequently, the common order dated 02.04.2014 on the file of the Judge Family Court, Belgaum insofar it pertains to Crl.Misc.7/2012 requires to be quashed. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The amount in deposit in the registry of this Court is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner.