Husband challenged a Magistrate's order granting his wife monthly maintenance of Rs.5000 and its appellate confirmation, pleading inability to pay and her earnings. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that an able-bodied husband must maintain his wife, the High Court dismissed the petition without notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 749 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
DILEEP B. G., @ SURESHA S/O GIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT S.BANDIHALLY VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI MURALIDHARA G. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. POOJA M. P., W/O DILEEP B. G., @ SURESHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT GUDDENAHALLY KOPPALU BELUR ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.MISC.NO.587/2018 ON THE FILE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C HASSAN AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN
CRL.A.NO.128/2019 ORDER DATED 10.05.2021.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner - husband is knocking at the doors of this
Court calling in question proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.587/2018 and the order dated 10.05.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.128/2019.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
The petitioner is the husband, the respondent is wife.
The two get married 27.10.2017. It transpires that after few months the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent flounders. On floundering of the relationship, the respondent initiates several proceedings, one of which is seeking interim maintenance under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. The concerned Court by its order dated 12.02.2019 grants
monthly maintenance payable to the wife at Rs.5000/-. The petitioner then prefers an appeal against the said order before the Court of session only to be dismissed by its order dated 10.05.2021. Challenging both these orders, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:48553 CRL.P No. 749 of 2023
grounds is considered by the Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG1 , wherein
at paragraphs 10 to 14 has held as follows:
"10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai2, it has been held that the object of 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. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
1 2022 SCC Online SC 1314
NC: 2024:KHC:48553 CRL.P No. 749 of 2023
warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no. 2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife.
12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any
NC: 2024:KHC:48553 CRL.P No. 749 of 2023
reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order.
13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an ablebodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son.
(emphasis supplied)
NC: 2024:KHC:48553 CRL.P No. 749 of 2023
Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT:SS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the husband could quash proceedings and set aside orders granting the wife Rs.5000/- monthly maintenance on the ground of his inability to pay and her own earnings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARGRelied on¶6
2022 SCC Online SC 1314 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
DILEEP B. G., @ SURESHA S/O GIDDEGOWDA
SMT. POOJA M. P.
M.NAGAPRASANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
