Vishalkumar S/O Basappa Guledakoppa vs. Smt.Smita W/O Vishalkumar Guledakoppa

Facts

The petitioner, Vishalkumar S/o Basappa Guledakoppa, filed a Revision Petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order of the Family Court, Hubballi. The Family Court had partly allowed a petition filed by Smt. Smita (the respondent) under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., awarding her maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The respondent/wife had filed the petition seeking maintenance, alleging that the petitioner/husband had raised queries about dowry and manhandled her, leading her to leave the matrimonial home. The petitioner/husband contended that the wife left without cause. The Family Court, after examining evidence, awarded maintenance. The petitioner/husband, aggrieved by this, filed the present revision petition.

Held

The High Court dismissed the revision petition. The Court acknowledged that there was no dispute regarding the marital relationship or the fact that the wife was residing away from the husband. However, the Court noted that the petitioner/husband, in his cross-examination, stated he earns Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per day as a cloth merchant in Bengaluru. While the petitioner's counsel attempted to argue that the petitioner pays GST, the Court found that no material was produced to substantiate this claim. Consequently, the Court held that there was no merit in the petition and therefore, no interference was called for with the Family Court's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Family Court is without basis and warrants interference by this Court, as contended by the petitioner/husband? 2. Whether the respondent/wife's claim for maintenance is sustainable, considering the petitioner/husband's contention that she left the matrimonial home without cause? Petitioner's Arguments: The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is without any basis and sought interference from the High Court. The petitioner also argued that he is a cloth merchant in Bengaluru and that he pays GST, implying an ability to pay maintenance. Respondent's Arguments: The learned counsel for the respondent invited the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of the petitioner and submitted that no interference is called for in the revision petition.