(1.) Petitioner is the husband and Respondent is the wife; they are an estranged couple. Petitioner has filed M.C.No.3975/2022 seeking a decree for dissolution of their marriage on certain grounds. Respondent-wife's Application in I.A.No.2 filed u/s.125(1) of Cr.P.C ., 1973 in Crl. Misc. No.610/2022 seeking interim maintenance having been favoured, learned II Addl. Prl. Judge of Family Court at Mysuru, vide order dtd. 27/4/2023 has awarded Rs.4,000.00 to the wife & Rs.3,000.00 for the child as monthly maintenance. There is also a direction to pay the educational expenses of the child. All this is put in challenge in the Writ Petition.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the Petition papers, this court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the marital relationship with the Respondent is not in dispute and the legitimacy of the child is also admitted. Whatever amount has been awarded is a frugal sum. In fact, this Court is amazed about the frugality of the award. It is the duty in law, religion & justice that the a person has to make payment for the maintenance of wife & children. However, no material is produced to show that the Respondent is gainfully employed and she has any source of income. Even otherwise the principal duty is on the shoulders of father. Petitioner has to look after other dependants like the parents, is a poor solace for not looking after wife & children.
(3.) The above apart, the impugned order is a product of exercise of statutory discretion by the Court below which has the advantage of accumulated wisdom in matters like this. For invoking writ remedy under Article 227, the other provision namely Article 226 having been ornamentally employed, a strong case of violation of rules of reason & justice has to be made out. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper substantiating the contention that Petitioner is incapable of making payment of this frugal sum too. All aspects having been duly considered by the Court below, this Court opines that the impugned order does not merit a deeper examination in constitutionally vested supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 vide SADAHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd ., (2003) 3 SCC 524.