BASAVARAJ Vs. GIRIJAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition had come up for orders on 9.4.2013. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was present before the Court and had requested for time. This Court has granted time till 15.4.2013. However, when the matter was called today in the morning, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was absent. The matter has again called at 3.10 p.m. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not turned up to address his arguments. Since this is a petition challenging for order for maintenance, there is no point in waiting for Counsel for the petitioner to appear and to argue the case. Hence, with the assistance of learned Counsel for the respondent, the matter is taken up for final disposal This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in the Crl. Misc. No. 02/2012 on the file of Family Court, Dharwad sitting at Hubli, challenging the order dated 9.1.2013 granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - to the petitioner therein and a cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Initially, the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on the file of JMFC, II Court, Hubli. The learned Magistrate on considering the oral evidence of the respondent -wife and the documents -Exs. P1 to P3 produced by the respondent -wife, allowed the said application by granting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - per month payable by the respondent therein. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate dated 29.10.2010 filed a Criminal Revision Petition bearing No. 10/2011 before the Sessions Judge, Hubli which was made over to the Fast Track Court No. II, Dharwad sitting at Hubli. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the case of the petitioner -husband that he has not contested the claim of the respondent -wife, allowed the said Revision Petition and directed the learned Magistrate to conduct the enquiry after permitting the husband to file objections to the main petition and then to dispose of the same after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence.

(2.) ON establishment of the Family Court in Dharwad, the matter was made over to the Family Court, Dharwad sitting at Hubli. The case was re -numbered as Crl. Misc. No. 2/2012. The wife got herself examined as PW. 1 and produced documents Exs. P1 to P5. The respondent -husband got examined himself as RW. 1, but he did not produce any documents. The learned Family Court after considering the material available on record, and on hearing the parties found that the respondent -husband is getting a salary of more than Rs. 15,000/ - per month and therefore, the wife being entitled to maintenance was held to be entitled to a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - and directed the respondent -husband to pay the same to the petitioner -wife. The husband has filed this petition challenging the said order of maintenance.

(3.) SO far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the husband is a driver of a State owned Corporation. His salary was shown as Rs. 16,182/ - during April 2012. He is entitled for necessary and permissible increments, so also other benefits like leave, medical assistance etc., The Court can take judicial notice of the income of the driver of the Government bus insofar as the additional bata for every trip, which they receive. In view of the steep rise in the cost of all essential commodities, a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order granting maintenance passed by the Family Court is legally and factually unquestionable. Hence, this petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.