Smt S R Ashwini vs G Harish

-1- NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

BEFORE R

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 104 OF 2018

C/W

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 134 OF 2017

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 131 OF 2019

IN RPFC NO. 104/2018

BETWEEN:

SMT. S.R. ASHWINI W/O. G HARISH, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, D/O. NETRA, Digitally signed by R/O. CHOWDESHWARI COLONY, JAI JYOTHI J NEAR RAILWAY GATE,. Location: HIGH ROAD LEADS TO HONNALI, COURT OF KARNATAKA SHIMOGA CITY - 577 201 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASAD B S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

G. HARISH S/O. GUDDALLI GIDDAPPA, R/O. KAZIKOPPALU, S.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA TOWN - 577 427, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. -2- NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

...RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT NOTICE H/S V/O DATED 03.06.2021)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC. 19[4] OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2017 PASSED IN C. MISC. NO. 128/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 125 OF CR. P. C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

IN RPFC NO. 134/2017

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O B. S. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

MANUKUMARA B. M S/O B. S. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, (DIED ON 11-09-2014)

2. APOORVA D/O B. S. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: YADAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE) -3- NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

AND:

1. B.S. MAHADEVAPPA S/O SRI. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT D. NO. 629, 7TH "E" CROSS, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU - 570 016.

WORKING AS TEACHER AT GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHINNANAYAKANAHALLI, NEAR KARIGATTA, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SATHYA. D. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2017 PASSED IN C. MIS. NO. 558/ 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 125 OF Cr. P. C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

IN RPFC NO. 131/2019

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SHARADHA ANVEKAR W/O PANKAJ ANVEKAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

2. BABY SNEHAL D/O PANKAJ ANVEKAR AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, REP. BY ITS NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SHRADHA ANVEKAR

BOTH RESIDING AT #973, 4TH CROSS, SATHAGALLI MYSORE - 570 019. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAN B.K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. PANKAJ ANVEKAR S/O SURENDRA ANVEKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT #418, GANDHINAGAR NAIKWADI PLOT, UPLAI ROAD, NEAR GODOWN, BARSHI - 413 411 SOLAPUR DISTRICT MAHARASTRA - 413 411 ...RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED)

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC. 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.05.2019 PASSED IN C. MIS. NO. 133/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 125 OF CR. PC., FOR MAINTENANCE.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -5- NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

ORDER

All the three petitions are filed by the wife calling in

question the judgment and award passed by the Family

Courts in dismissing the petitions filed under Section 125

of Cr.P.C. filed by the respective petitioners - wife on the

ground that in spite of decree of restitution of conjugal

rights is passed against the wife but the wife did not join

companionship of the respondent - husband. Therefore,

the Family Courts have dismissed the petitions filed for

maintenance.

2. Though the above said three petitions are

ordered under different facts and circumstances but one

common fact involved in these cases are that the

petitioners were constrained to live separately from the

respondents - husband on the ground that the

respondents - husband have subjected the petitioners -

wife to cruelty and ill-treatment. Therefore, the petitioners

are living separately and thus, filed claim petitions praying

for maintenance by invoking provisions of Section 125 of -6- NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019 Cr.P.C. by filing respective petitions. The Family Courts

have dismissed the petitions filed under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. on the ground that respondents - husband have

filed petitions invoking the provision of Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights

and decree is passed for restitution of conjugal rights. But

the petitioners - wife did not join companionship of the

respondents - husband. Therefore, on this ground that

the wife did not join matrimonial home of the husband,

which amounts to voluntary desertion, hence, the Family

Court has concluded that the petitioners - wife are not

entitled for maintenance. Accordingly, dismissed the

petitions.

3. Heard the arguments from both sides and

perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners - wife in all

the cases submitted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is the

beneficial legislation achieving social justice to destitute

wife, children and old aged parents. When on certain -7- NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

allegations that the respondents - husband have subjected

the petitioners - wife into cruelty, ill-treatment and

harassment to bring dowry amounts constraining the

petitioners - wife to live separately. The wife is entitled

social protection and maintenance under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C., which is enacted for providing maintenance to the

wife. Therefore, submitted that just because a decree for

restitution of conjugal rights is obtained by husband and

wife do not join husband that does not mean that the wife

is not entitled for maintenance from the husband. He also

submitted that just because the wife does not join

companionship of husband in spite of decree of restitution

of conjugal rights, that does not amount to voluntary

desertion by the wife. Therefore, submitted that the

Family Court without following principles of law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the spirit of enacting

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has erroneously dismissed the

petition filed for maintenance. He further submitted that

when a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance but

denying maintenance to the destitute wife though divorce -8- NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

is not obtained is amounting to discrimination among the

wife. Therefore, irrespective of decree of restitution of

conjugal rights, the wife is entitled for maintenance.

Therefore, prays to allow the petitions and grant

maintenance to wife.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents - husband submitted that when a decree for

restitution of conjugal rights is obtained by the husband

and if wife does not join matrimonial house of the

husband, it amounts to voluntary desertion by wife which

attracts the provisions of Section 125 (4) of the Cr.P.C.

Therefore, the Family Court is justified in dismissing the

claim petitions. Hence prays to dismiss the petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents - husband

places reliance on the following judgments:-

i. Sri.Subbaraya V. Manja vs. Smt.Rajalaksmi and another in R.P.F.C.No.110/2012 dated 24.04.2014 (subbaraya case);

-9- NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

ii. In the case of Khursheed Ahmad vs. Smt.Zakira reported in 2006 SCC Online P & H 900 (Khursheed Ahmad case);

7. Upon hearing arguments from the respective

learned counsels following point arises for my

consideration:-

Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, upon the allegation made by wife against her husband that he had subjected the wife to cruelty, harassment, torture and wife decides to live separately from the husband and file petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance; then husband files petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and obtains decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife; then in spite of decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife do not join matrimonial home of husband, whether, it amounts to voluntary desertion by wife under section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. thus not entitling wife for claiming maintenance against husband as per section 125(1) of Cr.P.C.?

8. The facts in all the cases are that petitioners

are wife of respondents respectively. The relationship

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

between the parties as wife and husband is not disputed.

On certain allegations made against the respondents, the

petitioners have left matrimonial home and started living

separately. The allegations made by the petitioners

against the respondents are that the respondents have

subjected the petitioners to cruelty, ill-treatment,

harassment etc. The petitioners have felt that there is

threat to their lives. Therefore, they have started to

reside separately. When the wife has become destitute for

sustaining in life and to lead normal life, to get

fundamental necessity i.e., food, cloth, medicine etc., they

have filed petitions seeking maintenance under Section

125 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court has dismissed the

petitions filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the reason

that the respondents have obtained decree for restitution

of conjugal rights and the wife did not join matrimonial

home of the respondents - husband, hence it amounts

voluntary desertion under sub-section (4) of section 125 of

Cr.P.C and thus, they are not entitled for maintenance and

accordingly, dismissed the petition.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Rajnesh vs. Neha and another reported in AIR 2021

SC 569, has laid down law in so far as granting

maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which are as

follows:-

"2. Given the backdrop of the facts of the present case, which reveal that the application for interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has remained pending before the Courts for seven years now, and the difficulties encountered in the enforcement of orders passed by the Courts, as the wife was constrained to move successive applications for enforcement from time to time, we deem it appropriate to frame guidelines on the issue of maintenance, which would cover overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of Interim Maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and enforcement of orders of maintenance.

Guidelines/Directions on Maintenance

3. Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

dependant wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.

4. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India provides that:

"Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children."

5. Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, which envisages a positive role for the State in fostering change towards the empowerment of women, led to the enactment of various legislations from time to time.

6. Justice Krishna Iyer in his judgment in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors1. held that the object of maintenance laws is:

"9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections 1 (1978) 4 SCC 70(AIR 1978 SC 1807)

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause - the cause of the derelicts.

7. The legislations which have been framed on the issue of maintenance are the Special Marriage Act 1954 ("SMA"), Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 1973; and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("D.V. Act") which provide a statutory remedy to women, irrespective of the religious community to which they belong, apart from the personal laws applicable to various religious communities.

(d) Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for maintenance of wife, children and parents in a summary proceeding. Maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. may be claimed by a person irrespective of the religious community to which they belong. The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is predicated on two conditions: (i) the husband has sufficient means; and (ii) "neglects" to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself.

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

In such a case, the husband may be directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors.

The remedy provided by Section 125 is summary in nature, and the substantive disputes with respect to dissolution of marriage can be determined by a civil court/family court in an appropriate proceeding, such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.

In Bhagwan Dutt v Kamla Devi(1975) 2 SCC 386: (AIR 1975 SC 83) the Supreme Court held that under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. only a wife who is "unable to maintain herself" is entitled to seek maintenance. The Court held:

"19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments."

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

(emphasis supplied)

Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling on the amount which could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs. 500 "in the whole". In view of the rising costs of living and inflation rates, the ceiling of Rs. 500 was done away by the 2001 Amendment Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act states that the wife had to wait for several years before being granted maintenance. Consequently, the Amendment Act introduced an express provision for grant of "interim maintenance". The Magistrate was vested with the power to order the respondent to make a monthly allowance towards interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition.

Under sub-section (2) of Section 125, the Court is conferred with the discretion to award payment of maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of the application.

Under the third proviso to the amended Section 125, the application for grant of interim maintenance must be disposed of as far as possible within sixty days' from the date of service of notice on the respondent.

In Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai (2008) 2 SCC 316:

(AIR 2008 SC 530) this Court held that the object of

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.

Proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena and Ors (2015) 6 SCC 353: (AIR 2014 SC 2875). this Court held that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able -bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute.

The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties are in a live-in relationship for a long period of time, which would give rise to a claim u/S 125 Cr.P.C. came up for the consideration in

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 141: (2011 Cri LJ 96 (SC)) before the Supreme Court. It was held that where a man and a woman have cohabited for a long period of time, in the absence of legal necessities of a valid marriage, such a woman would be entitled to maintenance. A man should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligations of such marriage. A broad and expansive interpretation must be given to the term "wife," to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for grant of maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. The Court relied on the Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System published in 2003, which recommended that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period, should be sufficient to draw the presumption of marriage.

The law presumes in favour of marriage, and against concubinage, when a man and woman cohabit continuously for a number of years. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings u/S. 125

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019 Cr.P.C. such strict standard of proof is not necessary."

10. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a social beneficial

legislation. The object of this provision is to achieve social

justice by providing social security to the destitute. Even

divorced wife is entitled for maintenance as per Section

125 of Cr.P.C. as per law laid down by the Hon'be

Supreme Court in the catena of decisions. When this being

the facts, if husband obtains decree for restitution of

conjugal rights and wife refuses to join companionship of

husband, whether it takes away right of wife for claiming

maintenance is the question to be considered in the

present case.

11. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads

as follows:-

"When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition

- 19 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly."

12. As per sub-section (4) of section 125 of Cr.P.C.,

if there is no reason for the wife to desert husband or wife

deserts husband voluntarily on her own will then the wife

is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. After passing decree for restitution of conjugal

rights and if wife does not join husband whether amounts

to voluntary desertion or what are the reasons for the wife

to reside separately is to be considered.

13. These type of situations are to be considered on

the aspect that what compels the wife to leave

matrimonial home of husband. There are so many facts

compelling wife to leave matrimonial home of husband

such as, ill-treatment, cruelty, dowry harassment, threat

to life etc. No women in Bharatha leaves voluntarily

matrimonial home of husband. The bondage between

husband and wife is sacred one as per Hindu traditions

and customs. The solemnization of marriage between a

- 20 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

male and female among Hindus is not a mere contract but

it is a sacred celebration of union of two souls. When such

being the traditions we have, if a wife decides to leave

husband and takes decision to start residing

independently/separately from husband, then what mental

agony might have occurred to the wife and apprehending

feelings of wife, what bad experiences the wife must have

undergone to take such extreme step of residing

separately from husband is not a simple factor just to give

maintenance or not to give maintenance.

Hindu concept of marriage:

Marriage as a sacrament

Among Hindus.--Manu laid down:

Wife is a divine institution given by Gods.

One should not think that one has obtained her by choice.

Her unity (with her husband) is established by the Vedas

A woman is half of her husband and completes him (Ardha Narishwara).

- 21 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

A Women must be honoured by her father, brother, husband and brother-in-law, who desires their own welfare. Where women are honoured, the Gods are pleased, but where they are not honoured, no sacred rites yield any reward.

Neither by sale nor desertion can a wife be released from her husband, this, we understand is the law ordained by the creator in former times.

Let mutual fidelity continue till death, this in few words, may be considered as the highest Dharma of husband and wife.

Let a man and woman united in marriage constantly be beware lest at any time disunited, they violate their mutual fidelity.

The objects of a Hindu marriage have been to have offsprings, to be able to perform religious rites and sacrifices (which a man can perform only along with his wife) and to have highest conjugal happiness and heavenly bliss for the ancestors and oneself the achievement of all these objectives are dependent upon the wife. Manu declared that a man who has not taken a wife has not fully perfected his personality and must be regarded as incomplete and imperfect. His personality is developed and completed, manu declared, only upon the union of his wife, himself

- 22 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

and his offspring. This is the significance of unity of personality of man and his wife under Hindu law. Thus, according to the Grihyasutras, marriage is not a contract but a spiritual union, a holy bond of unity. The words addressed to the bride after the saptapadi are:

Into my will, I take thy heart, thy mind shall follow mine.

Probably, no other people have endeavoured to idealize the institution of marriage as the Hindus have done. Even in the patriarchal society of the Rig vedic Hindus, marriage was considered as a sacramental union. And it continued to be so in the entire Hindu period, and even in our contemporary world most Hindus regard their marriage as a sacrament. We find the following passage in the Manu Smriti:

I hold your hand for saubhagya (good luck) that you may grow old with your husband, you are given to me by the just, the creator, the wise and by the learned people.

Manu enjoins on the wife that she should become a paturnuvarte, i.e., she should follow the same principles as her husband. According to the Rig Veda:

Be thou mother of heroic children, devoted to the Gods, be

- 23 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

thou Queen in thy Father-in-law's household. May all Gods unite the hearts of us two into one.

Wife is also ardhangini (half of man). According to the satpatha Brahmana: "The wife is verily the half of the husband. Man is only half not complete until he marries." The Taittiriya samhita is to the same effect, "half is she of the husband that is wife". From this notion of unity of personality of husband and wife, mutual fidelity of husband and wife is implied. Manu declared that mutual fidelity between husband and wife is implied. Manu declared that mutual fidelity between husband and wife is the highest Dharma. Manu further said that once a man and a woman are united in marriage, they must see that there are no differences between them, and that they remain faithful to each other.

In the Shastra, husband and wife are referred to by several names. The husband is known as Bharta, because he is to support his wife, he is also known as pati, because he is to protect her. On the other hand, the wife is known as jaya, because one's own self is begotten on her. According to the Mahabharata, by cherishing woman, one but virtually worships the goddess of prosperity herself; by afflicting her, one but afflicts the goddess of prosperity. A man's half is

- 24 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

his wife: the wife is her husband's best of friends; the wife is the source of Dharma, Artha and Kama, and she is also the source of Moksha. In the Ramayana, the wife is said to be the very soul of her husband. She is grihani (the lady of the house) in her husband's household, sachiva (wise counsellor), sakhi (confidante) to her husband and dearest disciple of her husband in the pursuit of art. She is grihalakshmi, ardhangini and samarajyi.

Thus, Hindus conceived of marriage as a sacramental union, as a holy union. This implies several things. Firstly, the marriage between man and woman is of religious or holy character and not a contractual union. For a Hindu marriage is obligatory, for begetting son, for discharging his debt to his ancestors and for performing religious and spiritual duties. Wife is not merely a grihapatni but also dharmapatni and sahadharmini.

(courtesy - Law of Marriage & Divorce, Paras Diwan, Seventh Edition, LexisNexis Publications, page No.14, 15, 16.)

14. Therefore, marriage among Hindus is a sacrament;

celebration of union of two souls and is not a contract. When

there is such a divine concept of institution of marriage among

- 25 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

Hindus, and wife leaves her parents home and decides to join

her husband's matrimonial home, with all dreams of building

her life, if the wife decides to live separately from the husband,

then one can apprehend how much mental agony, frustration,

hardship has undergone in the mind of wife.

15. No woman in Bharat for flimsy reasons takes

decision to live separately from husband. There must have

been some reason compelling the wife to reside separately.

Therefore, just because there is a decree of restitution of

conjugal rights is obtained by the husband, how far it is correct

to compel the wife to join matrimonial home of husband when

wife is going to turmoil. Therefore, these two aspects are to be

considered under the principles of decree for restitution of

conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, vis-

à-vis., right of claiming maintenance under section 125 of the

Cr.P.C. is to be appreciated.

16. The Delhi High Court in the case of Babita vs.

Munna Lal in Crl.Rev.P.1001/2018 decided on

22.08.2022 has held that mere existence or non compliance of

decree of restitution of conjugal rights by itself could not debars

- 26 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

or disentitles the wife within the meaning of section 125 of

Cr.P.C. from getting an order of maintenance. The Division

Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ravi

Kumar vs. Santosh Kumari, in Crl.R.44 of 1992 decided

on 22.04.1997 has held at paragraph No.11 as follows:

(11) We, therefore, answer the question of law referred to us as follows:-

1) The wife against whom a decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been passed by the Civil court, shall not be entitled to claim allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if in the proceedings of restitution of conjugal rights before the Civil court, a specific issue has been framed that whether without sufficient reason, the wife refuses to live with the husband, and the parties have been given an opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter specific findings are recorded by the Civil Court on this issue;

2) But in case the husband has got an ex parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights from the Civil Court, such decree shall not be binding on the Criminal Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

- 27 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

3) In case the decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been obtained by the husband subsequent to the order for maintenance passed by the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C., then the decree ipso facto, shall not disentitle the wife to her right of maintenance and in that case, the husband will have to approach the Court of the Magistrate under sub-section (5) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancelling the order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.;

And

4) The wife against whom decree of restitution of conjugal rights in the manner

indicated in our first conclusion has been passed, will get the right to claim maintenance from the husband with effect from the date when she is granted divorce and she will continue getting this maintenance till she re-marries.

17. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case

of Hem Raj vs. Urmila Devi and others, reported in

1996 SCC Online HP 116, has held that if husband

obtains a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and if

wife does not joint the husband, then the wife is not

entitled for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C.

- 28 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

18. This Court, in the case of Sri Subbaraya B.

Manja vs. Smt.Rajalaksmi, in RPFC No.110/2012

decided on 24.04.2014, has held that once Civil Court

has found in a contesting proceedings on the basis of the

evidence that the wife had no just or reasonable cause to

withdraw her company from the husband, she cannot

claim maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. in spite of

there is a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

19. Therefore, just because the decree for

restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act is obtained by the husband, and if wife does

not join matrimonial home of husband, whether it amounts

that the wife has voluntarily deserted the husband without

any just and reasonable cause and left the husband is a

question to be answered.

20. There are various reasons for the wife to desert

her husband. Some reasons can be expressed and some

cannot be expressed. The reasons for desertion to be

expressed are mental or physical violence or both on the

- 29 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

wife like torture, ill-treatment, making insult etc.,. Some

reasons cannot be expressed open to the society like

impotency or any other diseases of the husband, which

cannot be expressed to anyone else in the society, even

some times to her parents also. Therefore, there are

various reasons for the wife to take extreme step of

desertion to reside separately from the husband. When the

wife becomes destitute, she has to struggle hard for her

maintenance.

21. Therefore under these circumstances if husband

files a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

for restitution of conjugal rights, then some times it may

not be possible for the wife to contest the said petition due

to her economical incapacity. Even though the wife contest

the petition, it is not possible for her to express all the

sensitive matters/issues to the Court openly for the reason

that to preserve prestige and honour of the family of both

her parents and her husband's. Though the petition is

contested and decree for restitution of conjugal rights is

- 30 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

passed, but compelling the wife to join her husband is

nothing but putting forcefulness on the mind of the wife to

join the husband infringing her privacy and her willingness

and wish. Therefore, no force can be applied either to

husband or wife to join the spouses. The existence of wife

is not a mere physical body, but it is about feelings,

mental decision, physical decision, emotions and thus, wife

is not a mere physical entity like any other object. Wife is

a human being. Hence she cannot be forced to join her

husband against her will and wish. Though the husband

obtains a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, but it

cannot be executed unless wife is willing to join the

company of husband on her own will and wish.

22. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is legislated

with above object making a platform to make to unite

husband and wife. But just because decree of conjugal

rights is granted, it cannot be executed against the

feelings and emotions of wife compelling her to join

husband, as the wife is not a mere object of physical

- 31 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

entity. Though the Civil Court while considering the

petition for restitution of conjugal rights can see only

evidence produced before it, but some things cannot be

expressed openly. Even wife takes a prudent approach,

which is better to say, which is not better to depose all the

things before the Court to preserve prestige and honour of

the family of both the husband and wife. Therefore, just

because restitution of conjugal rights decree is passed,

such a decree cannot be executed, otherwise it amounts to

put pressure and compulsion on the mind of the wife to

join the husband and in this regard the wife's status has

become the only physical entity. This is forcing the wife to

join the husband on the basis of a decree for restitution of

conjugal rights is nothing but violation of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The wife is not mere animal

existence or a physical body entity. It is a law of nature

that no one can be forced to commit the act against

his/her own will. Therefore just because the decree of

restitution of conjugal rights is obtained, though it is

contested, not only exparte decree and when the wife do

- 32 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

not join the matrimonial home of the husband, it does not

amount to voluntary desertion of husband as per sub-

section 4 of section 125 of Cr.P.C.

23. There is a recent development that section 9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act is used as a platform to obtain a

decree of divorce before invoking section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act to make a ground that the wife has deserted

husband voluntarily. Therefore, the petition under section

9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is filed and obtained a decree

of restitution of conjugal rights, then, if the wife does not

join the husband, it enables the husband to raise a ground

of desertion by the wife in divorce petition. Therefore, just

because there is a decree of restitution of conjugal rights,

it always does not mean that really husband wants wife.

Therefore, law is being used in this context also. Hence it

cannot always be said that just because contested petition

for decree of conjugal rights proves that wife has on her

own willingness refused to join the companionship of the

husband. Therefore, though the decree for restitution of

- 33 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

conjugal rights is passed irrespective of exparte or

contesting the petition, the destitute wife is entitled for

maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C.

24. Even a divorced wife is entitled for

maintenance. When the divorced wife is entitled for

maintenance, why not for a destitute wife during

subsisting marriage. Therefore it is discrimination that

divorced wife is entitled for maintenance and a destitute

wife just because living separately is not entitled for

maintenance. Thus, it is violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

25. When a petition is filed under section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, the proceedings is summary in nature

and moreover the Civil courts are having normal tendency

to allow the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

Decreeing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is a

general rule. Dismissal of petition is exception. When the

proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is

summary in nature, and though whatever evidence is

- 34 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

produced before the Civil Court, decree of restitution of

conjugal rights will be passed. As above stated, just

decree for restitution of conjugal rights is passed, it cannot

be forced the wife to join the husband. External force

cannot be applied compelling the wife to join the husband

against her will.

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the

constitutional validity of section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act.

In the case of Smt.Saroj Rani vs. Sudarshan Kumar

Chadha, reported in (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases

90, it is held that the concept of restitution of conjugal

rights is based on the idea that marriage is a sacrament

and it is the duty of the parties to live together. Section 9

of the Hindu Marriage Act is an aid to make an attempt to

re-union husband and wife through the process of law.

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is for protecting

institution of marriage and its objective is to maintaining

marital harmony. Thus, its constitutional validity is upheld

by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

- 35 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

27. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act

emphasizing its role in promoting reconciliation and

preservation of marriage. The Court cannot force the wife

to stay with the husband when wife makes allegation

against the husband. The restitution of conjugal rights

simply means that the Court can order the parties to

resume cohabitation and marital relations, but it cannot

force to live together against her will. Some rights and

obligations emerge as a result of union like the right to

stay together and to engage in sexual intercourse with

each other and to fulfill the marital obligations. Thus,

basically the rights that emerging from marital bond which

have to be fulfilled by both the parties and if they do not

do so, naturally, they can be persuaded as a permissive

compulsion by the course to do so. Therefore, a decree of

restitution of conjugal rights passed by the Civil Court is

nothing but a pursuing compulsion on the part of the wife

or husband to join respectively their matrimonial home,

but it is not a compulsorily compelling the wife to join the

- 36 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

husband. This is the concept of restitution of conjugal

rights.

28. In the case of Sunita Kachwaha vs. anil

Kachwaha, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715, the Apex

Court had occasion to observe how to exercise the

discretionary jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

It was observed as under:

"6. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the Court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. While so, the High Court was not right in going into the intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and the Respondent and observing that the appellant-wife on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. Such observation by the High Court overlooks the evidence of appellant-wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court.

- 37 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

7. Inability to maintain herself is the pre- condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant-wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and daughters, while her husband's economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance."

29. Therefore the Court has to be cautious in

determining maintenance to wife under section 125(1) of

Cr.P.C. holding that non compliance of decree of

restitution of conjugal rights will be held as a ground for

not granting maintenance under section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.

While doing so, the conduct of the wife as to whether the

wife had sufficient reason not to stay with the husband or

husband creating such circumstances that the wife is not

able to stay with him have to be carefully observed by the

Court. These circumstances have to be considered while

- 38 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

deciding the petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for

maintenance but not solely being influenced by the decree

of restitution of conjugal rights. As discussed above, there

cannot be forceful circumstances for the wife to join the

husband that may not be coming in the proceedings under

section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore the Court

has to consider the case in summary way and observe

what are the compelling circumstances to reside

separately and to decide the petition filed for maintenance.

30. Therefore, granting the decree for restitution of

conjugal rights to the husband, ifso facto shall not debar

the wife from claiming maintenance. Therefore, section

125 of Cr.P.C. and section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act are

to be interpreted for which reason and object they are

enacted. Here, while considering the case for grant of

maintenance, the purposeful interpretation shall be made.

While interpreting, applying section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act and section 125 of Cr.P.C, both the

provisions are meant for achieving social justice.

- 39 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

Protection and preservation of institution of marriage is

also social justice. Therefore, just because the decree of

restitution of conjugal rights is granted and the same is

not complied with by the wife, that cannot defeat the

social justice given to the wife and the way of law has

been provided to the wife under section 125 of Cr.P.C.

Therefore, these two legislatures shall be interpreted

achieving social justice in general and social protection to

wife.

31. As observed above, sometimes section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act is a tool for husband to negate

maintenance to the wife and sometimes making a platform

to obtain decree of divorce. Therefore, for this reasons

also just because the decree of restitution of conjugal

rights is passed and wife is not willing to join the husband,

it does not always amount to voluntary refusal of wife to

join the husband. Therefore the petition filed under section

125 of Cr.P.C. are to be dealt with independently whether

the wife is entitled for maintenance or not. The Courts

- 40 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

while considering the proceedings under section 125

Cr.P.C., has to conduct independent enquiry by

appreciating the evidence which is before the Court to

reach conclusion whether wife makes out a ground and

fulfill conditions for grant of maintenance. There is nothing

in law to bar grant of maintenance under section 125 of

Cr.P.C. in case a decree of restitution of conjugal rights is

possessed by the husband. There is no express bar to

grant maintenance to the wife against whom a decree for

restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act has been passed, therefore there is no bar to

entertain the petition for grant of maintenance.

32. The decree for restitution of conjugal rights at

the hands of the husband at the most enures him to take

defence in the proceedings initiated by wife under section

125 of Cr.P.C., but for the Court it shall not be a sole

factor to refuse grant of maintenance to wife. Therefore

the petition filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. can be

considered on its own and independently after receiving

- 41 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

evidence on record, but without being influenced by the

decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

33. Another aspect is that as observed above, if the

non compliance of decree of restitution of conjugal rights,

it may result into divorce by taking a ground by the

husband. It is settled law that even divorced wife is

entitled to claim maintenance. Therefore, it is improper

and unfair to deny maintenance to wife when she becomes

destitute. Accordingly the point for consideration is

answered that though there is decree of restitution of

conjugal rights against wife and wife does not join the

matrimonial home of the husband, that does not amount

to voluntary refusal/desertion of husband, barring to claim

maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C.

34. In these cases the petitions filed by wife were

dismissed solely on the reason that the husband has

obtained decree of restitution of conjugal rights and wife

did not join the husband, therefore amounting to voluntary

desertion of husband by wife, hence, wife is not entitled

- 42 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. These

findings and conclusions of the Family Courts are hereby

set aside. Therefore in these three petitions wife is entitled

for maintenance.

35. Now let me consider the quantum of

maintenance to be granted in each case as follows:

RPFC No.104/2018.

36. In the present case the relationship between

the petitioner and respondent as wife and husband is not

disputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is

legally wedded wife of the respondent. It is alleged that

the relationship between the petitioner and respondent

was strained. Therefore she filed petition under section

125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance and that is dismissed. For

the above stated reasons, the reasons assigned by the

Family Court dismissing the petition are set aside. Thus

the petitioner being wife of the respondent and is a

destitute wife is entitled for maintenance and quantified as

follows.

- 43 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

37. The petitioner has claimed maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent. It is borne

out from the records that the respondent husband was in

the process of solemnizing second marriage with another

woman. Therefore the petitioner has filed suit in

O.S.No.721/2014, on the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge,

Shivamogga for permanent injunction restraining the

respondent to solemnize second marriage and it is stated

that the said suit is pending. Therefore when this being

the fact, it probablizes the fact that the respondent has

tried to solemnize second marriage with another woman.

It means that the respondent is a financially capable

person to maintain second wife and why not legally

wedded wife-petitioner. This is not controverted by the

respondent. Therefore, considering the entire case on its

preponderance of probabilities, the respondent shall pay

maintenance to the wife. It is the duty and also pious

obligation to maintain the wife and children. Here wife

alone has filed petition for maintenance. The respondent

being husband shall not take any excuse not to maintain

- 44 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

his wife. Therefore it is hereby ordered the respondent

shall pay maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month

to the petitioner from the date of petition till the life time

of petitioner wife or till she re-marries. Therefore the

petition in RPFC No.104/2018 is liable to be allowed

accordingly.

RPFC No.134/2017

38. In the present case the petitioners are wife and

two minor children of the respondent. The relationship

between the parties is not disputed. At the time of filing

the petition, the 2nd petitioner son was alive and he died

on 11.09.2014 during the pendency of the petition.

Therefore the Family Court has not granted maintenance

to the 2nd petitioner. The Family Court has rejected the

petition filed by the 1st petitioner wife and granted

maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the 3rd petitioner

daughter till she get married.

39. The Family Court has rejected the maintenance

to the 1st petitioner wife on the reason that the 1st

- 45 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

petitioner wife is doing coolie work in the agricultural lands

and also grazing cattle and hence is earning. Also another

reason for rejection of maintenance to the wife is that she

has not joined the husband in spite of decree of restitution

of conjugal rights.

40. Just because the 1st petitioner wife goes for

coolie work, the work in agricultural land and grazing

cattle that does not mean that the wife is capable to earn

and it is not the reason to shirk the responsibility of the

husband to maintain the wife. When the wife become

destitute, inevitably the wife has to work for her livelihood

and for feeding the children. Therefore this does not mean

that the respondent is not liable to pay maintenance. The

wife and children could not await decree from the Family

Court granting maintenance. Therefore for satisfying

starvation of herself and children, inevitably without any

alternative way, wife starts to work and therefore this is

not the reason holding that the husband is not liable to

- 46 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

pay maintenance. Therefore this approach of the Family

Court is hereby set aside.

41. The respondent is proved to be teacher working

in a Government Higher Primary School. Ex.P.5 is the

certificate issued by the Block Education Officer,

Srirangapattana, stating that the respondent husband is a

Government Teacher. Ex.P.6 is the school fees paid

receipts paid by the 1st petitioner giving education to her

children. Further, Ex.P.7 to P.17 are the RTC extracts

which prove the father of respondent is owner of

agricultural land in which the respondent is having share

definitely. Exs.P.18 to P.24 are the school fees paid

receipts paid by the 1st petitioner wife of her children

education. Therefore, when this being the evidence

produced by the petitioner, it is proved that the 1st

petitioner is wife and petitioners No.2 and 3 are children

and respondent is working as a teacher in the Government

Higher Primary School. It is defence of the respondent that

the 1st petitioner's parents are financially potential persons

- 47 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

and thus the 1st petitioner is not entitled for maintenance

from the respondent. Just because the parents or other

relatives of the 1st petitioner have entered into agreement

of development of their land, how this is concerned to the

1st petitioner in order to negate the petitioner to claim

maintenance is not forthcoming. The parents of 1st

petitioner may be financially potential persons, but that

does not mean that the 1st petitioner is not entitled for

maintenance from the husband. Inevitably the 1st

petitioner after desertion started to live along with her

parents and the parents and other relatives may be

financially potential persons, but that cannot be the reason

to shirk the responsibility to pay maintenance to the wife.

42. Ex.R.14 is the salary certificate of respondent

showing gross salary of Rs.29,638/-. The respondent

might have obtained loan such as housing loan, personal

loan and other loans that would ultimately to the benefit of

the respondent and therefore whatever instalments to be

paid towards such loans and deductions might have been

- 48 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

made in the salary slip of the respondent, that cannot be

deducted while considering the quantum of maintenance.

Ex.R.52 is the copy of sale deed of site, which proves that

the respondent has purchased site in Mysuru City. The

respondent might have availed loan for purchasing the

said site and is paying instalments towards repayment of

the said loan. But whatever instalments are paying and

made deductions in the salary slip, that cannot be

deducted while considering the quantum of maintenance

to be determined, payable to the wife, for the reason that

those loans availed or any deductions are made are

ultimately to the benefit of the respondent. Therefore,

considering the evidence that the respondent is a

Government employee, working as a teacher in the

Government Higher Primary School and as per Ex.R.14

salary certificate, issued by the Block Education Officer,

Srirangapattana stating that the respondent was receiving

gross salary of Rs.29,638/- as on 14.09.2015, though the

deductions are shown as Rs.19,074/- and take home

- 49 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

salary is Rs.10,564/-, such deductions cannot be

considered for determining the quantum of maintenance.

43. In certain circumstances the husband makes

arrangement for more quantum of deductions by creating

artificial deductions so as to show lesser take home salary

for the purpose of negating compensation to the wife or an

attempt to make awarding lesser quantum of

maintenance. Only the tax collected towards income tax

and professional tax are to be deducted. Whatever the

other deductions are ultimately to the benefit of the

husband. Therefore, after deductions in the salary slip

towards KGID, GPF, LIC, society loan, SBI loan, cannot be

deducted for the purpose of quantifying the maintenance.

Therefore, considering the gross salary is Rs.29,638/- and

the respondent being Government servant is having other

facilities and perks such as medical reimbursement, etc.,

therefore, for the purpose of quantifying the maintenance,

gross salary minus tax paid towards income tax and

professional tax is considered. Accordingly it is ordered

- 50 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

that the respondent husband shall pay maintenance

amount of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st petitioner wife and

Rs.8,000/- per month to the 3rd petitioner daughter who is

studying, from the date of petition till her life time in the

case of 1st petitioner or she remarries and till marriage in

the case of the 3rd petitioner daughter. Therefore, the

petition filed by the petitioners in RPFC No.134/2017 is

liable to be allowed accordingly.

RPFC No.131/2019.

44. In this case the relationship of the parties as 1st

petitioner is wife and 2nd petitioner is minor daughter of

the respondent is not disputed. The Family court has

granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month only to the

2nd petitioner daughter, but rejected claim of maintenance

to the 1st petitioner wife on the ground that the 1st

petitioner wife is working. The Family Court has observed

and came to the conclusion that since the 1st petitioner

has not honoured the decree of restitution of conjugal

rights obtained by the respondent husband, and the

- 51 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

petitioners have left the matrimonial home of the

respondent, therefore rejected the claim of the

1st petitioner and granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per

month to the 2nd petitioner daughter. The Family Court has

observed that before the marriage the 1st petitioner might

have been working but there is no evidence to show that

as on the date of filing the petition the 1st petitioner was

working and having source of income. PW.1 in her

evidence deposed that she is doing fashion designing

course. Just because the 1st petitioner was pursuing

fashion designing course, that does not mean that the

1st petitioner wife is working and earning income and it is

not the reason for shirking responsibility of the respondent

husband to maintain the wife and child.

45. Upon considering the evidence on record and

averments taken in the petition and statement of objection

of the respondent, it is proved that the 1st petitioner is not

working and does not have any source of income. Whereas

it is case of the respondent husband that he is an engineer

- 52 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

working at Mahindra Tech Company at Pune and receiving

lucrative salary. The respondent has taken contention that

he has purchased a plot in Pune for Rs.44,00,000/- out of

his savings. Therefore, this proves that the respondent is a

financially capable person. Therefore, upon considering the

entire case on all its preponderance of probabilities, in the

background of their pleadings and averments in the

petition and admissions made in the statement of

objections and evidence on record, it is proved that the

respondent is an engineering graduate working in a

private company and when he was able to purchase plot

worth of Rs.44,00,000/- in Pune, which proves the

financial capacity of the respondent. Though for the sake

of assumption respondent might have purchased property

worth of Rs.44,00,000/- by raising loan, unless having

capacity to repay the loan either by way of interest or by

equal monthly instalments, the respondent husband could

not have ventured to purchase the plot worth of

Rs.44,00,000/-. Therefore, this shows the financial

capacity of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent

- 53 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

husband is liable to pay maintenance. Considering the

factors discussed above, it is hereby ordered that the

respondent to pay maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- to

the 1st petitioner wife and Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd petitioner

daughter from the date of petition till the lifetime of the 1st

petitioner wife or she remarries and till the marriage in the

case of 2nd petitioner daughter.

46. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the

petitions filed by the wife and children above stated are

liable to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

i) All the three revision petitions are allowed.

ii) The order dated 20.07.2017, passed in

Crl.Misc.No.128/2016, by the Family Court, Shivamogga,

is hereby set aside.

iii) The Crl.Misc.No.128/2016, on the file of the

Family Court, Shivamogga, is hereby allowed.

- 54 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

iv) It is hereby ordered that the respondent

husband in Crl.Misc.No.128/2016 (RPFC No.104/2018)

shall pay maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten

Thousand Rupees) per month to the petitioner from the

date of filing of the petition till the life time of petitioner

wife or till she re-marries.

v) The order dated 14.02.2017, passed in

Crl.Misc.No.558/2013, by the Prl. Judge, Family Court,

Mysuru, is hereby modified.

vi) It is hereby ordered that the respondent

husband in Crl.Misc.No.558/2013 (RPFC No.134/2017)

shall pay maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten

Thousand Rupees) per month to the 1st petitioner wife and

Rs.8,000/- (Eight Thousand Rupees) per month to the 3rd

petitioner daughter, from the date of filing of the petition

till her life time in the case of 1st petitioner or she

re-marries and till the marriage in the case of the 3rd

petitioner daughter.

- 55 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019

vii) The order dated 17.05.2019, passed in

Crl.Misc.No.133/2018, by the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family

Court, Mysuru, is hereby modified.

viii) It is hereby ordered that the respondent

husband in Crl.Misc.No.133/2018 (RPFC No.131/2019)

shall pay maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/-

(Twenty-Five Thousand Rupees) per month to the 1st

petitioner wife and Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees)

per month to the 2nd petitioner daughter, from the date of

filing of the petition till the lifetime in the case of the 1st

petitioner wife or she re-marries and till the marriage in

the case of 2nd petitioner daughter.

ix) No order as to costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

MH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1