Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. B. C. Susheela, wife of the respondent Sri. J. Kariyappa, filed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in C.Misc.No.204/2016, which dismissed her petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13th March 1985 as per Hindu rites and customs. The wife claimed that she was unable to maintain herself and that the husband, who was employed as an Operator at BHEL, had sufficient means but neglected to maintain her. The Family Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the wife is capable of earning and therefore not entitled to maintenance. The High Court observed that the Family Court erred in placing the burden on the wife to prove her inability to earn, whereas under Section 125 CrPC, the burden is on the husband to show that the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself. The court noted that mere capacity to earn does not disentitle a wife to maintenance unless the husband proves that she actually has sufficient income. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh disposal, directing the Family Court to consider the matter afresh in light of the legal principles and to pass appropriate orders within six months. The revision petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Wife's Right to Maintenance - The Family Court dismissed the wife's petition for maintenance on the ground that she is capable of earning, but the High Court held that mere capacity to earn does not disentitle a wife to maintenance unless the husband proves that she has sufficient means to maintain herself. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-10) B) Family Law - Maintenance - Burden of Proof - Section 125 CrPC - The burden lies on the husband to show that the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself. The Family Court erred in placing the burden on the wife to prove her inability to earn. (Paras 5-8) C) Family Law - Revision - Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 - The High Court in revision can interfere with an order that is perverse or based on erroneous appreciation of evidence. The impugned order was set aside as it failed to consider the wife's actual financial position. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the wife's petition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on the ground that she is capable of earning, without considering her actual income and the husband's obligation to maintain her.
Final Decision
The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in C.Misc.No.204/2016 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, to be decided within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- wife's right to maintenance
- burden of proof on husband to show wife's sufficient means
- earning capacity not equivalent to actual income
- revision under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act
- 1984
