ZAREENA BEGUM Vs. MOHAMMAD GOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions are filed by the petitioner -wife and respondent -husband in Crl.Misc. No. 55/2011, which is disposed of by order dated 05.06.2012 on the file of the Family Court, Dharwad. The revision petition filed by the husband is in RPFC No. 337/2012 impugning the order insofar as it pertains to awarding maintenance to the wife in a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - p.m. along with cost of Rs. 1,000/ - towards litigation expenses. Sofar as RPFC No. 361/2013 is filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance, that is awarded to her in Crl.Misc. No. 55/2011.

(2.) THE undisputed facts leading to these two petitions are as under:

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -wife and respondent -husband, perused the evidence and pleadings of the Court below. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that, there is admission on the part of the petitioner -wife that, within 20 days from the date of the marriage, she declined to go to the matrimonial house at Ranebennur. It is seen that, she is insisted for separate house should be set up at Dharwad, when her husband was working in Ranebennur as SDA at the relevant point of time. It is also seen that the wife has left the matrimonial house on more than one occasion and on each occasion, the husband and his family members have gone to the house of the wife and brought her back to the matrimonial house. Finally, when the wife decided to desert the husband's house, she has done it when the husband was not at home. At that time, the elder brother of the husband has ensured that this lady would not be going out of the house alone, he provided assistance of someone in the house to ensure that she reaches the house of her parents safely. In the entire evidence of the petitioner -wife, it is clearly seen that she has been non -cooperative right from the day one and there is also evidence to the effect that the family of the petitioner -wife has demanded and collected money from respondent -husband. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the evidence available on record is not properly appreciated by the Court below. It has gone on the premise that, whenever a petition is filed by the wife irrespective of its merit, the petition should be allowed and maintenance should be granted to the wife. While doing so, it has not even bothered to see that whether husband has sufficient means to pay the maintenance, which has resulted in the order impugned being passed.