ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 2 -
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed by respondent in Crl.Misc.No.39/2020 challenging the Order dated 10.12.2021, on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Koppal, granting maintenance to the respondent herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred with reference to their rank before the Family Court, Koppal.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized about 21 years back and in their wedlock, a child is born, namely Nagaraj who is pursuing ITI course. It is the allegation of the petitioner that respondent has neglected the petitioner and not leading marital life and accordingly petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.39/2020, seeking maintenance.
4. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objection, disputing the marital relationship with the petitioner. It is also the case of the respondent/husband that the son born to the petitioner /wife is not his son and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.
- 3 -
The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its Order dated 10.12.2021, granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent herein. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent/husband has preferred this petition.
5. Heard Sri. M.M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Sri. M.M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the respondent herein is not the wife of the petitioner herein and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, Sri. Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the respondent/wife contended that, the respondent herein is the husband of the petitioner herein and in their wedlock a son is born and he is pursuing ITI Course and accordingly sought for dismissal of this petition.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that strict proof of marriage is not condition precedent for granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
- 4 -
CHANMUNIYA Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA & ANR., reported in 2011 (1) SCC 141, I am of the view that, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein cannot be accepted. Taking into consideration that the award of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month is for livelihood of respondent herein and therefore, no interference is called for in this petition.
9. Accordingly the Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
sac CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9