DURUDUNDESHWAR Vs. AARATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RPFC No. 348/2013 filed by the husband and RPFC No. 326/2013 filed by the wife and her son against the impugned order dated 27.6.2013 made in Criminal Misc. 48/2007 on the file of the Family Court, Belgaum granting maintenance of Rs. 2,500/ - to the son/2nd petitioner and rejecting the claim of the 1st petitioner/wife.

(2.) IT is the case of the wife and her son before the Family Court that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the husband/respondent in RPFC 326/2013 and their marriage was solemnized on 20.12.2004. After the marriage, wife joined the respondent/husband to lead the marital life and out of their wedlock, 2nd petitioner/son was born. Thereafter he started demanding dowry from the parents of his wife. It was also contended that wife, her parents and elderly people tried to convince the respondent/husband not to resort to illegal demand of dowry. He kept quite for a month and thereafter, again he started demanding dowry of Rs. 50,000/ - failing which she has to face dire consequences. Ultimately, the respondent/husband addicted to bad vices and during night hours he used to assault his wife mercilessly. Since petitioner No. 1/wife was working in Kasabekar Metgud Hospital, respondent/husband used to come to the hospital and look her in a suspicious manner thereby subjecting her to humiliation. Thereafter, on 13.12.2006 respondent/husband filed a petition in M.C. No. 181/2006 before the Family Court, Belgaum for divorce which was dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner No. 1/wife has left the job and living separately due to mental agony since January 2006 and thereafter, she is not in a position to maintain herself and her son. Therefore, it is the obligation of the respondent to provide maintenance since he has willfully neglected them. Hence she has issued legal notice to the respondent/husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ - for which the respondent/husband has issued a evasive reply. Therefore, she was constrained to file a petition.

(3.) AFTER considering the entire material on record, the Family Court by its impugned order dated 27th June, 2013 has granted maintenance of Rs. 2,500/ - only to petitioner No. 2/son and rejected the claim of the wife/petitioner No. 1 on the ground that it is admitted by herself, she is getting the salary of Rs. 13,000/ - per month against which order, the present revision petitions are filed.