Laxman Rathod vs Ramakabai Rathod

H.G. Ramesh

This revision petition by the husband is directed against the judgment dated 05.09.2009 passed by the Family Court at Gulbarga. By the impugned judgment, the Family Court has awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent-wife and also Rs. 50,000/- towards the marriage expenses of her daughter. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the record of the Family Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no acceptable evidence to hold that the petitioner and the respondent are the husband and wife and that in any view of the matter, the award of Rs. 50,000/- towards marriage expenses of the respondent''s daughter is without jurisdiction as Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, does not: empower the Court to award marriage expenses.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent wife specifically referred to Exs.P-1 to P-5 to show that the petitioner had married the respondent long back. He could not justify the award of marriage expenses in law.

I have perused the lower court record and particularly Exs. P-1 to P-5. Ex. P-1 is the SSLC marks card of the daughter - Meera Bai which shows that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and they have a daughter by name Meera Bai. Ex.P-3 is the ration card, which would show the name of the respondent indicating that the petitioner is her husband. Likewise, the Family certificate at Ex.P-4 issued by the Village Accountant and Ex. P-5 - the residence certificate issued by the Tahasildar would also show that the parties herein are the husband and wife. The Family Court, on an appreciation of these documents, has held that there is relationship of husband and wife between the parties. In this context it is relevant to refer to para 11 of the impugned judgment which reads as follows:

Petitioner produced S.S.L.C. Marks card of her daughter and also produced family ration card and genealogy and got them marked at Ex.P-1. 3 and 4 and residence certificate issued by Talisildar which is marked at Ex.P-5. All these documents prima facie reveal that, the Ramakabai and Laxman are the husband and wife and Meerabai is born to them Thus, on appreciation of the oral evidence of PW-1 to 3 and the documentary evidence at Ex.P-1. 3, and 5, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and Meerabai was born out of their wedlock...........................

The evidence on record also would show that the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent. It is stated that file petitioner has retired as an Assistant Sub-inspector of Police. Having regard to his income, the monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- awarded to the respondent-wife cannot be said to be excessive to warrant interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/s 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. 1984. However, the amount of Rs. 50.000/-. awarded towards marriage expenses of the respondent''s daughter is without jurisdiction and accordingly, it is set. aside. In all other respects, the judgment impugned herein is confirmed.

The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms in modification of the judgment impugned herein. Revision Petition disposed of.