M MENAKA Vs. SIDDALINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 4th February 2006 in C. Misc. No. 322/2000 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, have presented the instant Revision Petition (Family Court) seeking further enhancement of allowances awarded by way of maintenance by the Family Court on the ground that, the maintenance awarded is inadequate.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case ,are that, the marriage of first petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 8th July 1991 and out of the said wedlock, second petitioner was born on 22nd May 1992 and both the first petitioner and respondent lived together happily. After the birth of the daughter-second petitioner herein, the respondent did not visit to see the first petitioner. In spite of the first petitioner and her parents making several efforts to convince the respondent to take back the petitioners, nothing materialized and respondent refused to heed to their request. Thereafter, the first petitioner and her parents have sent words through their well wishers and made all sincere efforts and persuaded the respondent to take back the petitioners. The said efforts also did not yield any fruit with regard to continuity of the marriage of respondent with first petitioner. Therefore, first petitioner was constrained to stay back in her parental house along with her daughter and at the mercy of her parents. Even thereafter, respondent has failed to take back the petitioners into his home. Therefore, petitioners herein, having no other alternative, were constrained to initiate the proceedings by way of filing the petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming allowances by way of maintenance contending that, the respondent is a Lecturer working at the Pre University College, Doddaballapur and is getting the salary of more than Rs. 12,000/- and that, in spite of having sufficient income, respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners. The second petitioner is School going girl and first petitioner has no other source of income of her own. Therefore, the petitioners are entirely dependent upon the parents of first petitioner and are at the mercy of them. Therefore, she preferred the petition seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to first petitioner and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to her daughter. The respondent has filed the objections and admitted the marriage but contended that, first petitioner was not cordial and she was dictatorial in attitude and has ill-treated him and caused unhappiness to the respondent. Further, respondent has contended that, first petitioner hails from a rich family and she has not taken any care of respondent and she has gone to the matrimonial house without informing the respondent and that, he has made several attempts to bring back the first petitioner but, first petitioner and her brother influenced the management of the Junior College, where he was working as Lecturer and got him suspended and in fact, they have caused mental agony and not permitted the respondent to discharge his duties as Lecturer in the College where he was working. Due to the tension and mental stress, he became diabetic patient. However, some how respondent managed to get the suspension revoked and was re-instated and is drawing the net salary of Rs. 7,330/- per month and has incurred loan of Rs. 80,000/- to perform the marriage of his sister and that, he has to repay the same at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month with interest at the rate of 5% and further availed loan of Rs. 50,000/- for his treatment and is repaying the said loan amount at the rate of Rs. 2,100/- per month and that he requires a sum of rs. 3,000/- per month for his personal expenses. Further, it contended that,first petitioner hails from a rich family having sufficient means and that she is working as teachers in some School and there is no need of maintenance for herself and her daughter. Therefore, he contended that, the petition filed by petitioners was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE Family Court after going through the petition filed by petitioners, after considering the objections filed by respondent, after framing necessary points for consideration and after considering the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, has answered point No. 1 partly in affirmative and point No. 2 as per the final order and allowed the petition with costs of Rs. 1,000/- and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to first petitioner and a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to second petitioner towards their maintenance from the date of the order apart from paying the arrears of interim maintenance granted vide order dated 5th February 2002 till the date of the said order. Further, the Family Court observed that, first petitioner is entitled for maintenance during her life time and second petitioner is entitled for maintenance till she is married. Further, the Family Court directed the respondent to pay the future maintenance on or before 10th of every month. Assailing the correctness of the inadequate allowance awarded by way of maintenance by the Family Court, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition seeking enhancement of maintenance.