Roopali Sanjay Mane vs Sanjay Vasantrao Mane

B. Veerappa, J.—The petitioner - wife has filed the above revision petition against the impugned order dated 25.11.2010 made in Crl. Misc. No. 218/2009 by the Family Court, Belgaum, granting maintenance to the wife from the respondent-husband, from the date of petition till further orders.

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the wife of the respondent and that their marriage was performed on 29.5.2003 as per Hindu Rights and Customs at Raibhag and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Raibag on 13.10.2003. After the marriage the petitioner went to the house of the respondent to lead marital life. She discharged her duties as a wife without any stigma. In spite of the same the respondent is ill treating the petitioner by taking alcohol and he has doubted the chastity of the petitioner and also alleged that the petitioner is not fertile and cannot get a child and in the Medical examination it is found that the respondent is impotent due to addiction of alcohol and in spite of the same, the petitioner is discharging her obligation as a wife. The respondent is not interested to live with the petitioner. The parents of the respondent are also supporting the respondent and their intention is to throw out the petitioner from their house. Thereafter she lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional Police in the year 2007 and stated that the petitioner is living along with her parents and respondent is having sufficient income of Rs. 5,000/- per month as salary and apart from salary he is getting rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Therefore, she sought for monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month. On receipt of notice from the Family Court, the respondent filed objections admitting the relationship of the petitioner and he has not disputed the marriage and further contended that the petitioner never discharged the duty as a daughter in law for his parents, she never used to do any domestic work, whenever his parents tried to convince her, she used to keep quarrelling with them and the petitioner was examined by one Dr. Tendulkar, a Gynecologist. The Doctor advised the petitioner to take treatment for three months and stated that he is not impotent. He further contended that he is not getting any rent of Rs. 3,000/- nor salary as alleged. However, he admits he is getting salary of Rs. 1,500/- per month. He has contended that she is able to maintain herself and she is running Beauty Parlour in the name and style of ''Roopas Beauty Parlour'' at Rajaram Nagar, Udyambag and earning Rs. 500 to Rs. 800/- per day and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance and hence prays for dismissal of the petition.

Based on the pleadings the Family Court raised the following points for consideration:--

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that she is refused and neglected by the respondent?

Whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance? If so at what rate?

What order or decree?"

In order to establish her case the petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and marked the documents Exs. P.1 to P.8 No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

After considering the entire material on record the Family Court by its impugned order dated 25.11.2010 has awarded Rs. 1,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of petition till further orders. Against the said order the present revision petition is filed for enhancement.

The notice issued to the respondent is served and unrepresented.

I have heard Sri N.K. Maruthi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the impugned order is passed by the Family Court granting only Rs. 1,000/- without considering the Exs. P1 to P4. Property extracts stands in the name of the respondent, which shows that he has some property. He also contended that Ex. P.6 is the sale deed indicating that the respondent and his father had alienated the flat at Rs. 8,00,000/- and no evidence is adduced nor documents produced contrary to the evidence and documents produced by the petitioner. In spite of sufficient opportunity given the husband has not cross-examined P.W. 1. Therefore she sought for enhancement of maintenance.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material on record.

It is an admitted fact that the marriage is not denied by the respondent. The only grievance indicated in the objections filed by the respondent is that the petitioner has not discharged the obligation of the respondent or his parents as a wife. Except filing objections the husband has not filed any documents nor adduced any evidence nor cross examined P.W. 1 - the petitioner. P.W. 1 has specifically stated on oath that the petitioner owns property and the respondent and his father together have alienated certain property at Rs. 8,00,000/- immediately after the petition is filed by the wife for maintenance on 21.4.2009 and sale was made on 20.6.2009 as per Ex. P.6 sale deed for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The said material fact has been suppressed by the respondent in the statement of objections. Considering the averments of the petitioner that the respondent has sufficient means and is capable of maintaining the wife, and that the wife is not able to maintain herself and there is no means for her livelihood and also considering the cost of living and rise in price of all the essential commodities, maintenance granted by the Family Court at Rs. 1,000/- per month to the wife, who is residing in Belgaum is inadequate. Therefore, it requires further enhancement.

Taking into consideration the entire material on record, both oral and documentary evidence of P.W. 1, I am of the opinion, it is a fit case to enhance the maintenance by another Rs. 1,000/- to the wife. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Family Court is modified and the petitioner-wife is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month, from the respondent- husband, from the date of petition.

In view of disposal of the petition itself, I.A. 1/2014 does not survive for consideration.