RAMANAGOUDA Vs. BHARATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Mr. Ramanagouda, has challenged the legality of the order dated 22.12.2014, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad whereby, the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1, Smt. Bharati under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and has directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/ - to Smt. Bharati, and Rs. 2,500/ - to Master Sagar and Master Sahitya, the two children of the couple.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married on 08.12.2002 at Dharwad as per the Hindu customs and rites. From 2002 till 2013, the couple stayed together. During the wedlock, the couple was blessed with two children, namely Master Sagar and Master Sahitya. However, as dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, they parted their ways. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 has been staying with her mother along with her two children. Unable to maintain herself and her two children, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance. The said application was allowed by the order dated 22.12.2014. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Srinand A. Pachchapure, the learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently contended that the respondent No. 1 had clearly claimed that for eleven years she had lived with the petitioner. During this period, she was not only subjected to physical and mental cruelty, but was also locked up by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, and considering the future of the children and considering the fact that they need a better place for their education than a village, she had no other option but to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental house at Dharwad. Thus, sufficient cause has been shown by the respondent No. 1 for leaving the company of the petitioner. Hence, the intention about deserting the petitioner does not exist. Therefore, one of the main ingredients to establish desertion is conspicuously missing in the present case.