T. RAMESH Vs. RANJANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner, who was the respondent in Cri. Misc. No.381/2007 in the Court of the learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred as 'the Family Court'), has preferred this petition challenging the judgment dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Family Court in the said Crl. Misc. No.381/2007, wherein the present respondents No.1 & 2 were petitioners, and the Family Court directed the present petitioner (respondent before it) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m., as maintenance to the petitioners 1 & 2 from the date of filing of the petition till lifetime to the 1st petitioner or till she remarries and till the 2nd petitioner attaining the age of majority.

(2.) The summary of the case of the petitioners in the Family Court was that, Petitioner No.1 therein, who is Respondent No.1 herein, is the wife of the present petitioner ( husband). Who were married to each other on 03.11.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs. The 2nd petitioner/daughter (Respondent No.2 herein) was born to them out of their wedlock, on 16.01.2004. Due to the act of the respondent/husband therein and his parents, the petitioners (wife and daughter) were driven away from the matrimonial home and in many settlements held between them, the respondent/husband used to agree to take care of his wife and daughter, but used to start ill-treating and harassing them after sometime. As such, the petitioners (wife and daughter), who are the respondents herein, were constrained to live separately. The petitioners (wife and daughter) in the Family Court further contend that, the respondent/husband, at the time of they filing petition was working in M/s. B.L Kashyap and Sons Private Limited, Indiranagar, Bengaluru and drawing Gross Salary of Rs. 31,000/- p.m., and another sum of Rs. 35,000/- by way of bonus. Stating that, in spite of having sufficient income, the respondent (husband) has not been maintaining the family and he is subjecting the petitioners (wife and daughter) to mental and physical harassment, the 1st petitioner had sought for maintenance of not less than a sum of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. After service of notice, the husband (respondent in the Family Court) appeared through his counsel and filed statement of objections, wherein, he admitted his marriage with petitioner No.1 (wife) and both of them getting the 2nd petitioner born to them as their daughter. However, he denied that he had at any point of time driven away the petitioners No.1 & 2 (wife and daughter) from the matrimonial home and neglected to maintain them. In his statement of objections, the respondent (husband) also contended that, immovable residential property was also acquired by him in the joint name of himself and the 1st petitioner ie., his wife and the petitioners, who are residing therein are the sole beneficiaries of the said property. Both the parties led their evidence in the Family Court, wherein Petitioner No.1 (wife) got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P76 and the respondent (husband) got himself examined as RW.1 and also got marked Exs. R1 to R15. The Family Court after hearing both side, by its judgment dated 12.11.2013 partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioners No.1 & 2 (wife and daughter) before it and directed the respondent (husband) to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. as maintenance to them. Challenging the said judgment, the respondent (husband) in the Family Court, has preferred this Revision Petition.

(3.) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 (wife and daughter) herein are being represented by their counsel.