THAJMUL PASHA Vs. SHAZIA NUZATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter was listed yesterday, none had appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner. Hence, in the interest of justice, it was ordered to be listed today. Even today, there is no representation. Hence, I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition.

(2.) THIS revision petition filed by the husband is directed against the order passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in C. Misc. No. 438/2008 dated 2.1.2014 whereunder the petition filed by the wife and son of the revision petitioner under section 125 of Cr.P.C. came to be allowed in part and revision petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/ - as maintenance to the child per month from the date of petition till he attains majority and has also directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - per month to the wife from the date of petition during her lifetime. For payment of arrears, two months time has been granted by the Family Court.

(3.) THE said grounds which were also urged in the objections statement filed before the Family Court came to be considered by the Family Court after evaluating the evidence of both the parties and came to be negatived. A perusal of the said order would indicate that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the first respondent, second respondent was born and by birth, he is having ailments. The reason assigned by the wife to desert the husband was not only harassment, but also on the ground that her husband was having illicit intimacy with one Smt. Nikhatha who was hailing from Yelahanka and he was always in her company. It is an undisputed fact that second respondent by birth had heart problem and had to undergo surgery. It is no doubt true that wife was earlier working in Himalaya Drug Company Limited as per Ex. P1. However, on account of the ill -health of the child, she has resigned from her job as evidenced from Ex. P2. Respondent -husband has not been able to demonstrate or prove before the Family Court that she was either gainfully employed or was otherwise capable of maintaining herself and also her son. Infact suggestion made to her in this regard during her cross examination has been denied. Though husband has admitted in his cross examination that he is working in the Postal Department at Mahadevapura, he did not produce the salary slip. On the other hand, the ground on which he attempted to stave off payment of maintenance to his wife was on the ground that he has to maintain his vehicle for which he requires Rs. 4,000/ - and Rs. 6,000/ - towards his expenses, by completely ignoring the fact that first respondent is his legally wedded wife and second respondent is his son who is also suffering from several ailments and they can also be taken care of. Infact, Ex. R3 the sanction letter for Rs. 80,000/ - issued by the Postal Department in favour of the husband which is dated 12.5.2007 would clearly indicate that sanction had been accorded to husband for payment of Rs. 80,000/ - towards medical advance to be payable to the "Director, Narayana Hrudayalaya, Bangalore" for treatment given to the son Master Mohammed Danish Pasha. This would only fortify the claim of the wife that their son is suffering from heart ailment and as such, it cannot be gainsaid by the petitioner -husband that he is not required to maintain the wife and son. The maintenance awarded by the Family Court is just and reasonable, not calling for interference.