LAWS(KAR)-2015-3-211

K. RAMAKRISHNA Vs. PARVATHI DEVI

Decided On March 18, 2015
K. Ramakrishna Appellant
V/S
Parvathi Devi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband has filed this revision petition against the order dated 05.04.2014 made in Crl. Misc. Case No. 288/2013 granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ - p.m. to the respondent/wife during her life -time or till her remarriage.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed Crl. Misc. No. 288/2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner/husband claiming maintenance of Rs. 12,000/ - p.m. and litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/ - from the petitioner, alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 30.03.2000 at Bellary. After the marriage, they lived together happily for few months. Thereafter, the petitioner started abusing her and caused mental agony by stating that she is not a fair looking lady and her physical appearance is not good and also stating that she has not attained puberty and she is incapable of getting pregnancy, etc. The respondent tried to adjust with the petitioner, but all efforts went in vain. In the meantime, the petitioner all of a sudden filed a petition for divorce; the same was closed by recording compromise petition between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent was working at Hospet, as such they had shifted their residence to Hospet. Even after the compromise, the petitioner continued to abuse the respondent and was assaulting her. Ultimately, in the month of March 2013, the petitioner had a quarrel with the respondent and drove the respondent out of the house. The respondent is residing in Bellary along with her parents and also contended that the respondent is unable to maintain herself and the petitioner is getting salary of Rs. 28,000/ - p.m. and is also owning six houses and getting rent of Rs. 5,000/ - p.m. from each houses, etc. Therefore, she sought for maintenance of Rs. 12,000/ - p.m. from the petitioner.

(3.) UPON considering the pleadings, the Family Court framed the following points: