Sri. Kiran kumar @ H. Shivakumar vs Smt. Mamatha and Yashavantha Gowda R2 Being A Minor, represented by R1 His Natural Guardian-Mother

B.V. Pinto

This petition is tiled seeking to set aside the order dated 10.6.2011 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC., Sira in C.Misc.No.156/2009 as confirmed by the Fast Track Court-II, Tumkur in Crl.R.P.No.132/2011 by order dated 15.9.2011.

Respondents filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate alleging that the petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent and that the petitioner is having sources to maintain the Respondents, however, he has negiected to maintain them. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having income of Rs. 10,000/- per month and he is an able body bodied person. In order to prove the case, the first respondent has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2, which are RTCs of the land. The petitioner has got himself examined as RW.1.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to both the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Fast Track Court-II, Tumkur. The Fast Track Court-II after appreciating the evidence on record confirmed the older passed by the learned Magistrate. It is further directed that the maintenance so awarded shall be payable from the date of petition instead of date of order. It is the said order, which is challenged by the petitioner in this Court.

Heard Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri D.Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

I have gone through the Judgments of both the Courts. The Sessions Judge has held that if there is no proof of any payment made by the husband to the wife during the pendency of the maintenance petition them, the normal order to be passed by the learned Magistrate shall take effect from the date of application. Hence, there cannot be any grievance of the petitioner on the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting maintenance from the date of petition. So far as the quantum of maintenance ordered is concerned, It is observed that the petitioner is an able bodied, young man of 30 years, he is deemed to be having sufficient income to take care of his wife and child, which is his legal obligation also. The wife has further produced Exs.P1 and P2, which indicates that the petitioner owns the property. The petitioner has not come forward with any document to show his income so as to prove that he is unable to pay the maintenance to his wife and son. The first respondent is admittedly an uneducated and unemployed woman.

Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the orders by the Court below are perverse or against the evidence on record so as to interfere in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.