Allowed

S Ravikumar v. G S Pushpavathi

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023RPFC/197/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged a Family Court order granting maintenance to a wife living with her parents while neglecting their mentally challenged child. The High Court held that since the wife voluntarily deserted the husband without sufficient reason and failed to care for the child, she was not entitled to maintenance and dismissed her original petition.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month granted to respondent by Trial Court set aside; Respondent's petition for maintenance dismissed.

S Ravikumar Vs G S Pushpavathi — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40269 RPFC No. 197 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 197 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S. RAVIKUMAR, S/O. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR OF MEDICAL SHOP, NO.132/1, SHIVASHANKAR NILAYA, K.T.J. NAGAR, 16TH CROSS, NITTUVALLI MAIN ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHANNAMMA S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

G. S. PUSHPAVATHI, W/O S. RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O LOKIKERE VILLAGE, DAVANGERE TALUK - 577 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2019 PASSED IN CR.MISC.NO.3/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT DAVANAGERE PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40269 RPFC No. 197 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Family Court at Davangere in Cri.Misc.No.3/2018 by which, it directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of sum of Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of petition.

¶20

The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. She claimed in her petition that soon after she was given in marriage, her mother-in-law underwent amputation of fingers of the limb and from that day onwards, she was abused and physically assaulted and she was treated as a bad omen. She claimed that her husband used to support his mother. She alleged that when she became pregnant, she was not taken care of by her husband/respondent or any other members of the family. She claimed that when she was five months pregnant, she was sent to her mother's house for confinement and that the respondent did not visit her, and did not enquire about her health. She claimed that on 16.11.2006 she gave birth to a baby boy and that after 3 or 4 days, it was diagnosed that the child was unwell and was shifted to Bapuji Hospital,

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40269 RPFC No. 197 of 2019

¶22

where it was in the ICU for one month. She claimed that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was spent by her father for the medical expenses of the child. She alleged that her husband did not even care to visit the child once. She therefore suffered mentally due to the way in which she and her child were treated. She claimed that for five months she lived with her parents and even then, her husband did not turn up and did not visit her. When she telephoned him and invited him over, her husband claimed that he was not interested to seeing a mentally challenged child. She claimed that no ceremonies were performed for the child. Later, after five months, she came back to her matrimonial home along with her relatives. She alleged that at her matrimonial home, she was abused for giving birth to a mentally challenged child and the child was not taken care of by anyone. She alleged that her husband and her in-laws were insisting on getting money from her parents to look after the child, but they did not spend any money on the upkeep of the child. She alleged that she and her child were thrown out of the house several times and several panchayats were held to resolve the issues. She alleged that about four years ago, her husband took the child out of her custody and

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:40269 RPFC No. 197 of 2019

¶25

threw her out of the house, which she informed to her parents, in respect of which, a panchayat was also held. However, her husband and her in-laws did not care to attend the panchayat and threatened to kill the child if she stepped into the matrimonial home. She claimed that she attempted to go back to her husband's house several times, but she was not allowed into the house. When she requested that the child be handed over to her that too was refused by her husband. She therefore claimed that she was residing with her parents as her husband was not taking care of her and her child, and therefore her husband was liable to maintain her. With these and other contentions, she claimed maintenance of a sum of Rs.10,000/per month and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

¶26

The petition was contested by her husband, who admitted the relationship and also the fact that the respondent had given birth to a mentally challenged child. He claimed that the respondent, willfully and without any reasonable cause, deserted him and was residing with her parents. He alleged that the respondent was not performing her marital obligations and therefore, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance from him. He claimed that he was taking good care of the child

¶27

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40269 RPFC No. 197 of 2019

¶28

and that he had spent several lakhs of rupees for his treatment, and that the respondent never turned up to look after the child from the year 2006. He therefore contends that the respondent is a carefree lady who did not show any responsibility to perform her martial obligations but preferred to stay with her parents, ignoring the interest of the mentally challenged child.

¶29

Based on these contentions, the petition was set down for trial. The respondent was examined as PW1, who reiterated the averments made in the petition. The petitioner was examined as RW1. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence allowed the petition and directed payment of maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home as she was not interested in brining up the child. He contended that from then on the respondent is residing with her parents. He contended that the instant petition is filed in the year 2018 as a

¶31

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40269 RPFC No. 197 of 2019

¶32

counter blast to the petition filed by the petitioner for dissolution of marriage. He therefore contended that the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance. He contended that it is the petitioner who has raised the child and that he has spent enormous sums of money on the child to meet the medical expenses.

¶33

Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent was thrown out of the house and she was treated badly. Therefore, she was forced to stay with her parents. He contended that the parents of respondent have expired and there is no one on whom she could depend. Thus he contended that so long as the respondent is the wife of petitioner, she is entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner.

¶34

I have considered the contentions of the learned

¶35

counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the trial Court.

¶36

In the cross-examination of respondent/wife, she admitted that she was residing with her parents on her own volition and that despite her parents telling her to go back to

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:40269 RPFC No. 197 of 2019

¶39

her husband's house, she did not go to her matrimonial house. She did not take any steps to contact her husband or to go back to his house. She also did not take any steps even to see the child. She admitted that she did not take any steps to claim any maintenance from the year 2006 till the year 2018, when she filed the instant petition. She admitted that her husband had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and that the instant petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C was filed after the petition for dissolution was filed by her husband. Therefore, this indicated voluminously that the respondent had withdrawn the company of the petitioner and was voluntarily residing with her parents, unmindful of the responsibility of a mother to look after a mentally challenged child. To a suggestion that her husband had spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the treatment of the child in Bengaluru based on the advice of the doctor in Davangere, she denied the same. She however, admitted the fact that her husband used to take the child once in three months to Bengaluru for treatment. She admitted that she had seen the child six years before the date of her cross examination i.e., some where during the year 2012. She also admitted that she did not take any steps to see the child, but

¶40

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40269 RPFC No. 197 of 2019

¶41

claimed that her parents had gone to see the child and that they were abused by her husband. She also admitted that she did not take any steps to see the child or take steps for interim custody of the child in the divorce proceedings initiated by her husband. She also did not take any steps in the process known to law to gain access to the child. She candidly admitted that when she was residing at her parents house and that it was her husband who was looking after the child. She also admitted that the child was not in a position to take care of itself and its daily activities. The oral evidence adduced before the Court, therefore, established the fact that the respondent stayed away from the petitioner voluntarily without any reasonable cause. The allegations made in the petition against her husband were not established by either examining her parents or any other person who was aware of the marital relationship of the respondent with the petitioner. It is shocking that a mother of a mentally challenged child could have abandoned the child to be brought up by the father. This Court can appreciate the magnitude of the difficulty faced by the father in bringing up a mentally and physically challenged child. The conduct of the respondent in not making any attempts even to see the child,

¶42

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:40269 RPFC No. 197 of 2019

¶43

demonstrates the mental set-up of the respondent and the unwillingness on her part to perform her marital obligations.

¶44

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when once the wife has deserted the husband without reasonable cause and she has not taken any steps from the year 2006 till the year 2018 to claim maintenance from the husband, the present case filed by the respondent claiming maintenance from the petitioner, is nothing but an attempt to strong-arm the petitioner to concede to her claim for maintenance. Under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C, a wife is not entitled to receive any maintenance or litigation expense from her husband if she is living in adultery or she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason or if she is living separately on her own. In the case on hand too, the oral evidence adduced before the Court indicates that the respondent had voluntarily withdrawn from the company of her husband and was living with her parents. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner. The trial Court without considering this, held that the husband did not take any steps to bring back his wife to the matrimonial home and that not withstanding the conduct of the

¶45

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:40269 RPFC No. 197 of 2019

¶46

wife, he was liable to maintain her so long as the relationship subsisted. This cannot be the intention of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when a woman is unable to maintain herself or is neglected from being maintained by her husband, she is entitled to invoke the provisions of law to seek maintenance.

¶47

In that view of the matter, this Court does not see any justification to sustain the order passed by the trial Court. Consequently, this petition is allowed . The impugned order passed by the trial Court granting maintenance of Rs.2,500/per month and execution expenses for Rs.1,000/- is set aside. Consequently, the petition filed by the respondent before the trial Court is dismissed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

¶50

CT: BHK

S Ravikumar v. G S Pushpavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Ravikumar v. G S Pushpavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. M Basappa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Padma Priya Rupesh Vs Smt. Subbamma

Smt Kavitha K v Vs Sri Revanasiddappa G R

Sri. a. Dinakar Rai, Vs State by Bajape Police Station

Sri. a. Dinakar Rai Vs State by Bajape Police Station

Mr Chandrahas T Ameen Vs Mr a Dinakar Rai