PANCHAKSHARAIAH Vs. VISHALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the JMFC, Gubbi, in Crl. Misc. No.175/2008 and also the order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Tumkur, in Crl. R.P. No. 152/2010.

(2.) IT is an undisputed fact that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. On account of certain matrimonial differences, the respondent herein started living separately from the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Gubbi, in Crl. Misc No. 175/2008 seeking an order directing the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- for her maintenance. The said petition was contested by the petitioner herein inter alia contending that the respondent-wife has no justifiable reason to live separately and therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. IT was also contended by the petitioner herein that he is not working anywhere nor he has any income; therefore, the question of directing him to pay monthly maintenance to the wife, does not arise.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds to entertain this petition. As noticed by the Courts below, the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The fact that the respondent-wife has been residing separately from the petitioner-husband for some time prior to the date of the petition is not in dispute. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding that there are justifiable reasons for the respondent-wife to live away from the husband. HAVING regard to the evidence on record, the said finding recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed as perverse or as illegal. Therefore, the Courts below are justified in holding that the respondent wife is entitled for the maintenance from her husband. The petitioner being the husband is under legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife. The only other contention urged by the petitioner herein was that he has no means to pay the maintenance ordered by the Courts below. Both the Courts below having regard to the oral evidence on record have held that the petitioner has been working as compounder in Siddaganga Hospital and in addition, he is also owning agricultural lands, from which he is getting income. The said finding recorded by the Courts below is not shown to be perverse. It is also noticed by the Courts below that, the notice of the petition was served on the petitioner herein in Siddaganga Mutt. This clearly indicates that he is working in Siddaganga Mutt. Of course it is the contention of the petitioner that he is rendering social service in Siddaganga Mutt and that he does not get any income. It is highly difficult to believe such contention. This contention appears to be only to avoid payment of maintenance to the wife. The petitioner has not placed any acceptable evidence to show that he is not working as compounder in Siddaganga Mutt.