Yarriswamy vs Anandeshwari

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner in RPFC: 100176/2014 has called in question the impugned order of dismissal passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bellary in Crl. Mis. No. 273/2013 dated 30.8.2014, filed u/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance granted earlier in Crl. Misc. No. 313/2006.

The respondent - husband in RPFC: 100153/2014 has challenged the order passed by the same court in Crl. Misc. No. 66/2014 filed by him u/s. 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking reduction of maintenance already awarded to the wife in Crl. Misc. 313/2006.

As both the petitions were dismissed, the petitioners are before this court in the above said petitions. The trial Court has clubbed both Crl. MC No. 273/2013 and 66/2014 and a common order has been passed.

I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the respondent respectively.

The undisputed facts between the parties are that the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife and there were earlier proceedings before the court in Crl. Misc. No. 313/2006 in which the wife has filed petition u/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance and in the said petition after due discussion and contest, the court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month in favour of the wife. Subsequently, the wife has filed petition for enhancement of the maintenance and husband has also filed a petition as noted above for reduction of the maintenance awarded from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 500/- per month. That shows that the husband has been ready to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per month instead of Rs. 1,500/-. It is also an admitted fact before this Court by the learned Counsels, that though an amount of Rs. 1,500/- has been ordered by the court, due to some mis-conception the husband has been paying Rs. 1,600/- per month. The wife also admits that she has been receiving Rs. 1,600/- per month from her husband. As neglect, refusal and other ingredients of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. have been proved, there is no necessity for this court to go in detail with regard to those aspects. It suffice to consider whether the quantum of maintenance as awarded by the trial Court is proper and correct under the facts and circumstances of this case. The trial Court in fact has considered in detail the oral and documentary evidence placed by the parties. The wife has examined herself as PW 1 and got marked exhibits P1 to P22, the respondent husband has also examined himself as RW 1 and got marked exhibits R1 to R9. It is the case of the wife that husband has been gainfully employed and that he has been getting salary of Rs. 17,335/- per month as per the salary certificate marked at Ex. P1. Therefore, the amount awarded by the trial Court at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- is very meagre and under the facts and circumstances, she is entitled for more amount as prayed in the petition. The respondent in fact has admitted that he is having salary of Rs. 17,335/- but he is getting take home salary of Rs. 14,387/- per month. It is also not in dispute that the respondent - husband has taken second marriage and he has got two children and he has to maintain not only the second wife but also the children of the second wife and his aged parents. Therefore, he has contended that he is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per month and sought for reduction of the award of maintenance from Rs. 1,500/-. The trial Court has considered the documentary evidence placed before the court. The documentary evidence also show that the wife is also doing some business in the name and style of ''Mother Teresa Development Trust (Registered)''. The documents produced before the court which are marked at Ex. P9 & P10, clearly discloses that the said Trust has been consistently receiving service charges paid as she is running a Helpline centre in the City Municipal Corporation, Bellary. The said avocation of the wife has also been supported by the Bank account extracts produced before the court as per Exs. P11 to P13. As rightly observed by the trial Court, apart from receiving an amount of Rs. 1,600/- per month from the husband towards maintenance, she has been receiving other amount to her credit. He has taken up the contention that the customers of the said Trust have been depositing the amounts. Therefore, she has no control over the said amount and she was not getting any amount on her own and further contended that merely it is shown in her account extracts, she cannot said to be having such income from any other source, but she has neither examined any person before the court nor she has explained the account extract issued by the competent authority. No other witness has been examined as to how and in what manner and under what circumstances, they have deposited the amount into the account of the petitioner''s wife. Therefore, considering all the surrounding circumstances, the court has come to the conclusion that she is not entitled for any enhancement of maintenance and the court cannot reduce the amount already granted in the earlier petition. There must be a changed circumstance to be made out by the parties either for enhancement of maintenance or for reduction of the amount. It is also an undisputed fact that the husband has taken second marriage, and he has been living with his second wife and two children along with his parents. Therefore, considering the responsibilities of the husband and also the avocation of the wife and that she has been earning some amount other than the one by way of maintenance from the husband. Therefore, the factual aspects have been properly and correctly appreciated by the trial Court. When such being the case, while exercising powers under the revisional jurisdiction, the court cannot go deep into the factual aspects of the case. The court has to see whether there is any illegality has been committed by the court or perverse in appreciating the fact and circumstances of the case or committed any irregularity, which amounts to illegality. If such things are not available before the court, on facts, the revisional court normally should not reverse the judgment of the trial Court. In the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court in the above said two Misc. petitions. Hence, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

However, it is made it clear that as the husband has been paying an amount of Rs. 1,600/- per month a maintenance to the wife, though the trial Court has ordered Rs. 1,500/- per month, he shall pay regularly in future also an amount of Rs. 1,600/- per month in favour of the wife.

Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.