KUMAR SUKESH Vs. SHIVANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioners had filed a petition against the present respondent in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Family Court'), under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), claiming maintenance from the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner No.3 is the wife of the respondent, whose marriage with each other was performed on 28.11.2003 as per the Hindu customs and traditions. From their marital relationship, they begot two children i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein. The respondent after some time of the marriage, started subjecting petitioner No.3 (his wife) to cruelty and ill-treatment. He started demanding her to bring additional dowry of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. On 12.12.2006, the respondent after abusing, assaulting and ill-treating petitioner No.3, driven her out of his house. As such, having no other alternative, the petitioner No.3, joined by her children i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 2, has to go to her parental house. The attempts made for reunion also did not yield any result. Finally, petitioner No.3 filed a case against the respondent under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'D.V.Act'), before the learned II Addl.J.M.F.C. Court, Vijayapura, in Crl.Misc.No.156/2008. In the meantime, she also came to know that the respondent contacted a second marriage with a lady called Ummawwa. The respondent filed a divorce petition against petitioner No.3 in M.C.No.18/2009, before the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura, which petition came to be allowed by the order dated 18.10.2010. The petitioner No.3 preferred an appeal before this Court in M.F.A.No.32170/2010 (FC). The petitioner No.3 also filed a private complaint against the respondent in P.C.No.717/2011, before the learned II Addl. J.M.F.C. Court at Vijayapura, for the offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1908. The petitioners herein contended that the respondent had neglected to maintain them and to provide them the basic necessities. Stating that the respondent is a Goldsmith and earning an income of Rs. 40,000/- per month from his avocation, they claimed maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for each of the petitioners payable by the respondent.

(3.) The respondent in the Family Court after service of summons, appeared through his counsel and filed his statement of objections, wherein, though he admitted his relationship with the petitioners, but, denied that he had subjected the petitioner No.3 to cruelty or ill-treated the petitioners or even ignored the petitioners. He also contended that in the petition for dissolution of marriage i.e., M.C.No.18/2009, he was directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 3 lakhs, as such, he has deposited the said permanent alimony in the Court. Therefore, he is not required to pay any maintenance to the petitioner.