MANAPPA Vs. YELLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Shivakumar Kallur, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 25. 6. 1999 whereby the family Court Judge at Raichur, had allowed the petition under Section 125 of the Code of criminal Procedure filed by the respondents 1 to 3. The present respondents 1 to 3 are. the wife and two minor children (namely 2nd respondent is the daughter and the 3rd respondent is the son) of the revision petitioner. According to the applicant, present revision petitioner and respondent No. 1 were legally married according to the customs prevailing in their community 16 years ago and that from their wedlock, two children were born. According to the respondent no. 1, the relationship between her and her husband got deteriorated as the husband developed bad habits and started ill-treating wife and, ultimately, the husband/revision petitioner threw the wife and children out of his house. According to the case of the present respondent No. 1 i. e. , the wife, the husband revision petitioner was addicted to the habits of gambling, drinking and womanizing and the wife and children were neglected. On being thrown out of the house, respondent No. I/wife filed an application for maintenance claiming maintenance to the tune of rs. 500. 00 each namely Rs. 500. 00 for herself and Rs. 500. 00 each for two children. The Family court, after considering all the materials on record, found that the petitioner i. e. , the present respondent No. 1 has been the legally wedded wife of the present revision petitioner and the present respondents 2 and 3, who were the petitioners in the maintenance petition, were the children born out of the lawful wedlock of the revision petitioner and the respondent No. 1 before this Court. The Court below further found that the husband was deliberately refusing to maintain his wife and the children. The Court below observed that the respondent/ present revision petitioner had made bald allegations of unchastity against the wife by denying the paternity of the children. This cannot be said to be anything else than cruelty and this could certainly be the ground for the wife and the children to claim the maintenance while living separately even. 2a. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Trial Court cannot be said to have acted illegally in awarding the maintenance.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that under law, the limit for grant of the maintenance is only Rs. 500. 00 and not more. He submitted that the maintenance, in total, was awarded to the tune of Rs. 1,500. 00 and the Court below acted illegally in awarding the same. The limit being Rs. 500. 00, maintenance could not be awarded more than Rs. 500. 00.