SANGEETHA BIDDATANDA Vs. PAVAN MUTHAPPA BIDDATANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the Order dtd. 27/8/2019 passed by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Mis.No.310/2015 (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court'), by which the Trial Court refused to grant maintenance to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Due to various reasons, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was marred beyond repair. The petitioner and her children filed Crl.Mis.No.310/2015 claiming maintenance of a sum of Rs.30,000.00 per month for the petitioner and a sum of Rs.20,000.00 per month each to the children. The petitioner claims that the respondent was a coffee planter and he was earning a sum of Rs.45,00,000.00 per annum and that there was a timber worth of Rs.2.00 Crores in his land, a part of which was sold for a sum of Rs.50,00,000.00. She claimed that she was unemployed and she was unable to maintain herself. It is also her case that she was working as a part time teacher in a school and was earning Rs.3,000.00 to Rs.5,000.00 per month which was not sufficient for their maintenance.

(3.) The petition was contested by the husband/respondent who admitted the relationship with the petitioner and that they had begotten two children from the wedlock. He alleged that the petitioner left the matrimonial home in the year 2012, and she was caught red handed leading an adulterous relationship with one Ravichandra, whose wife had lodged a complaint against her husband Mr. Ravichandra. The respondent filed a petition for divorce in M.C.No.391/2012 against the petitioner herein where the adulterer was sought to be arrayed as a party, which however was turned down but later this Court permitted the adulterer to be cited as a witness in M.C.No.391/2012. He contended that in order to cover up her illicit relationship with Ravichandra, she had hurled false allegations against him. The respondent claimed that he was only a Manager of the property that belonged to his mother and that the petitioner was employed as a teacher and was earning a sum of Rs.8,000.00 per month. He claimed that the petitioner was leading a comfortable life with her parents at their home. Based on these rival contentions, the case was set down for trial. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and she marked documents as Exs.P1 to P35. The respondent was examined as R.W.1 and he marked documents as Exs.R1 to R12.