THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.264 OF 2008
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) by the petitioner/husband is directed against the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in M.C. No.263/2006 filed under Section 125 of CrPC requesting to award maintenance to the wife and minor son of the petitioner.
2. The preliminary facts, in brief, are as follows: ‘The marital relationship between the first respondent herein i.e., the first petitioner in the maintenance case and petitioner herein i.e., the respondent in the said M.C is not disputed. Similarly the paternity of the second respondent herein is also not in dispute. The case of the respondents 1 and 2 herein is this: 'The petitioner herein and his mother along with other family members subjected the first respondent to both physical and mental harassment by making illegal demands for additional dowry and had ultimately necked her out of the house along with minor son and, thus, the petitioner had deserted the respondents 1 and 2 and had neglected to maintain them and that they have no means of their own and that the petitioner is having a good economic condition and is obliged under facts and in law to pay maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2 and that, therefore, they are entitled to maintenance. In fact, the first respondent claimed Rs.13,500/- per month towards her maintenance and Rs.2500/- per month towards the maintenance of the second respondent.' The petitioner had not filed his counter in the maintenance case, but had participated in the trial. In the defence advanced by the petitioner during course of the trial is this: ‘The first respondent demanded him to register the house of his mother in her name and that when he had refused to do so she had voluntarily left his company.'
3. During the course of enquiry, the first respondent herein was examined as PW1 and exhibits P1 and P2 were marked on the side of the respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner was examined as RW1. After considering the facts and evidence, the learned Additional Judge, Family Court awarded a maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month each to the respondents 1 and 2 from the date of the petition i.e., 07.11.2006. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. I have perused the material record and also the evidence. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent in her evidence as PW1 had reiterated her pleaded case and had maintained her stand in her cross examination. Despite an opportunity given to the petitioner herein, he did not file a counter before the trial Court. During the trial he had advanced only one defence i.e., the demand of the first respondent to register the house of his mother in her name and his refusal to do so and the voluntary desertion of the first respondent. However, in the light of the fact that no counter has been filed taking a defence in that regard, a mere bald suggestion during the cross examination, which is bereft of details, cannot be countenanced. The evidence of PW1 was not challenged in cross examination and not even suggestions were put to her denying her case. Therefore, her evidence remained un-refuted. The petitioner herein had also not filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. On the other hand, he had filed two petitions for divorce, one in the Family Court and the other in the Court at Tenali. His petition for divorce was dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court by disbelieving the petitioner’s case that the first respondent had deserted him. His application for divorce in the Court at Tenali was also dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case the evidence of the wife/PW1 deserves acceptance.
5. Now coming to the award of the maintenance, the law is well settled that insofar as the minor child, the petitioner is obliged under facts and law to pay reasonable amount of monthly maintenance to the child. The law is also well settled that unless the husband establishes that his wife has income of her own and needs no financial support from him, she cannot be denied maintenance from the husband. The maintenance has to be awarded keeping in view the social status and the economic condition of the husband and also the reasonable amount which the wife and child would require for their sustenance and upkeep. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that she has no means of her own and has no source of income for her sustenance and the sustenance of the child. Having regard to the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court had rightly held that the wife and the son of the petitioner are entitled to award of maintenance.
6. Coming to the economic condition of the husband and the quantum of maintenance to be awarded, it is to be noted that in O.P. No.94/2004 filed by the petitioner in the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Tenali, he had mentioned his monthly income as Rs.15,000/- from rents and from properties. He had further admitted in his cross examination in the proceedings filed for the custody of the minor son that he is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He had also admitted in his cross examination that he owns a vacant site in Hyderabad and that in the legal notice given by him to PW1, he had mentioned the value of the said site as Rs.40 lakhs. Thus, the evidence on record sufficiently established his economic condition and social status. Therefore, considering the status of the family and the good economic condition of the petitioner, the learned Judge, Family Court awarded Rs.2500/- per month each to the respondents 1 and 2 herein.
7. Having regard to the facts, the submissions and the evidence on record, this Court finds that there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay maintenance or that the maintenance awarded is not commensurate to the status of his family and economic condition. Be that as it may, during the course of hearing, it is fairly conceded that after divorce the first respondent had remarried on 10.12.2010. As per the settled legal position and the admitted fact, she is not entitled to maintenance from her former husband from the date of her remarriage i.e., 10.12.2010.
8. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the maintenance awarded by the trial court at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month each to the respondents. However, it is ordered and made clear that the first respondent shall be entitled to claim maintenance as awarded by the trial court from the date of the petition till 09.12.2010, as she had remarried on 10.12.2010. The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of accordingly.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J Date: 26.12.2014 MVA