ROOPALI SANJAY MANE Vs. SANJAY VASANTRAO MANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner - wife has filed the above revision petition against the impugned order dated 25.11.2010 made in Crl. Misc. No. 218/2009 by the Family Court, Belgaum, granting maintenance to the wife from the respondent -husband, from the date of petition till further orders.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that she is the wife of the respondent and that their marriage was performed on 29.5.2003 as per Hindu Rights and Customs at Raibhag and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Raibag on 13.10.2003. After the marriage the petitioner went to the house of the respondent to lead marital life. She discharged her duties as a wife without any stigma. In spite of the same the respondent is ill treating the petitioner by taking alcohol and he has doubted the chastity of the petitioner and also alleged that the petitioner is not fertile and cannot get a child and in the Medical examination it is found that the respondent is impotent due to addiction of alcohol and in spite of the same, the petitioner is discharging her obligation as a wife. The respondent is not interested to live with the petitioner. The parents of the respondent are also supporting the respondent and their intention is to throw out the petitioner from their house. Thereafter she lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional Police in the year 2007 and stated that the petitioner is living along with her parents and respondent is having sufficient income of Rs. 5,000/ - per month as salary and apart from salary he is getting rent of Rs. 2,000/ - per month. Therefore, she sought for monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/ - per month. On receipt of notice from the Family Court, the respondent filed objections admitting the relationship of the petitioner and he has not disputed the marriage and further contended that the petitioner never discharged the duty as a daughter in law for his parents, she never used to do any domestic work, whenever his parents tried to convince her, she used to keep quarrelling with them and the petitioner was examined by one Dr. Tendulkar, a Gynecologist. The Doctor advised the petitioner to take treatment for three months and stated that he is not impotent. He further contended that he is not getting any rent of Rs. 3,000/ - nor salary as alleged. However, he admits he is getting salary of Rs. 1,500/ - per month. He has contended that she is able to maintain herself and she is running Beauty Parlour in the name and style of 'Roopas Beauty Parlour' at Rajaram Nagar, Udyambag and earning Rs. 500 to Rs. 800/ - per day and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance and hence prays for dismissal of the petition. Based on the pleadings the Family Court raised the following points for consideration: - -

(3.) IN order to establish her case the petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and marked the documents Exs. P.1 to P.8 No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.