S. MANJUNATH Vs. NETHRAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is filed assailing the correctness of the Order dtd. 26/10/2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar (henceforth referred to as 'the Family Court') in Crl. Misc. (FC) No.70/2017 by which the petitioner herein was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000.00 per month to the respondent No.1 herein from the date of the application till her lifetime or till she remarries and a sum of Rs.15,000.00 per month to the respondent No.2 herein from the date of the application till the date of his attaining majority and a sum of Rs.50,000.00 every year towards educational expenses of the respondent No.2 herein and a sum of Rs.25,000.00 to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein towards litigation expenses.

(2.) A petition in Crl. Misc. (FC) No.70/2017 was filed by the respondents claiming maintenance of Rs.40,000.00 per month to each of them and Rs.1,00,000.00 to the respondent No.2 per year towards his educational expenses. The respondent No.1 contended that she was given in marriage to the petitioner on 8/3/2015 at Kanipakam in Andhra Pradesh and that she and petitioner were residing at Srinivasapura for 1 1/2 months and that respondent No.2 was born from the wedlock. The respondent No.1 claimed that petitioner and his mother had demanded gold ornaments and a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 as dowry which they upped later. The respondent No.1 claimed that her parents agreed to the demand of the petitioner and his mother and parted with gold ornaments and cash of Rs.2,00,000.00 apart from silver articles. She claimed that her mother-in-law started interfering with the affairs of the family and again started demanding more money from her parents and her parents gave Rs.1,00,000.00 to the petitioner on two occasions. When they again demanded more money from her parents and when they refused to comply, petitioner and his mother started ill-treating respondent No.1 and abusing her and many a times physically assaulted her. Respondent No.1 alleged that she was not provided with basic necessities following which panchayats were held for settlement but the petitioner and his mother refused to heed to the advice of the panchayatdars. The respondent No.1 further alleged that her mother-in-law planned to kill her several times and that she managed to escape every time. She further alleged that prior to her marriage, petitioner had already married another lady named Smt.Rashmi, daughter of Sri S. Narayanaswamy of Ramanathapura village, Devanahalli Taluk, and after such marriage, he had an illicit relationship with a lady named Ms.Prameela and they both were involved in the murder of the said Smt.Rashmi on 8/2/2012. She alleged that the father of Smt.Rashmi had lodged a complaint against petitioner, his mother and Ms.Prameela before Srinivasapura Police Station who registered Crime No.35/2012 for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 304B and 306 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ' IPC ') and under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A charge sheet was also filed against them. The respondent No.1 alleged that the petitioner and his mother without disclosing that they were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences, had performed her marriage with the petitioner. She further alleged that the petitioner, his mother and Ms.Prameela tried to kill her when she was pregnant. The respondent No.1 claimed that apprehending danger to her life, she joined her parents and delivered a child on 21/2/2016. She claimed that though she went to the house of the petitioner on 3/4/2017, she was scorned and abused and was refused to be accepted into the house. She alleged that many relatives of the petitioner assaulted her and that she was admitted at S.N.R hospital, Kolar in respect of which Crime No.87/2017 was registered against the petitioner and his mother and others for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 323, 324, 504 read with Sec. 149 of IPC.

(3.) The respondent No.1 alleged that the petitioner had an obnoxious habit of watching blue films on his mobile phone and used to sexually harass her. She alleged that the petitioner was addicted to bad habits and came to the house every day intoxicated and used to beat her up demanding dowry from her parents. She alleged that the petitioner forced her to dissolve the marriage and when she refused, petitioner and his mother demanded that she give permission for petitioner to marry for the third time. She alleged that the petitioner had more than 50 acres of mango grove from which he was earning Rs.25,00,000.00 per year and he had many houses at Srinivasapura Taluk from which he was earning rental income of Rs.2,00,000.00 per month. The respondent No.1 claimed that she was in need of a sum of Rs.40,000.00 per month for her maintenance and her son / respondent No.2 was in need of Rs.40,000.00 per month towards his food, clothing and other activities and also a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 towards his educational expenses. She claimed that her husband had all the wherewithal to maintain her and her son but had neglected them. She, therefore, filed a petition under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ' Cr.P.C .') claiming maintenance of Rs.40,000.00 per month to herself and a sum of Rs.40,000.00 per month to her son apart from Rs.1,00,000.00 per year towards his educational expenses.