HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2121 OF 2012 Dated 10-9-2014 Between:
Dangeti Srinivas.
And:
..Petitioner.
Peesapati Janaki and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2121 OF 2012 ORDER:
This revision is against order dated 30-9-2011 in M.C. No.10 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District.
Petitioner herein is husband, first respondent is wife and second respondent is son of petitioner.
First respondent herein filed above M.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month for herself and Rs.3,000/- per month for the son. Trial court, after examining two witnesses on behalf of wife and marking eight documents and examining one witness and marking three documents on behalf of husband, awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1500/- per month to the son. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that petitioner has no job and he is only living on tuitions and that there is no fixed income for the petitioner and that he has to maintain his mother on this income.
He further submitted that wife is working as a teacher in a private institution at the time of filling of M.C. and now she is working as accountant and she is capable of earning. He further submitted that petitioner herein educated wife and she admitted the same in her evidence also. He further submitted that quantum of maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to wife and Rs.1500/- per month to son is on higher side and the court below has not properly evaluated evidence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for first respondent submitted that petitioner is earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a Sanskrit teacher and also earning Rs.3,000/- as Hindi Pandit and that quantum of amount granted by court below is quite reasonable and that there are no grounds to interfere with the orders of learned Magistrate.
He further submitted that both parties attributed character assassination against each other and the respondent as R.W.1 did not speak anything with regard to his income and as he failed to produce any evidence in support of his contention that he is not having any fixed income, trial court considering evidence of PW.1 granted maintenance, and the same is quite reasonable.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the order of the court below is legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. Admittedly, they are living separately, divorce petition is filed and same is pending. It is also not in dispute that second respondent is a school going child.
As seen from the evidence, R.W.1 in his entire chief- examination did not whisper anything with regard to his income. What all he stated is that he is not able to maintain himself and he has no income. But the fact remains that he is working as a Sanskrit lecturer but he failed to disclose his income whether it is fixed or temporary. It was suggested to R.W.1 that he is earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- as a salary as a Sanskrit lecturer but he denied the same. In the evidence, P.W.1 deposed that petitioner is working as lecturer in N.D.A., Kothavalasa and drawing Rs.8,000/- per month and he is also working as Hindi Pandit in the afternoon session and getting Rs.5,000/- per month and she further deposed that he is having movable and immovable properties and that there are no dependants on him except his mother.
In the cross-examination, it was suggested to P.W.1 that she worked as a teacher in Vidya Vignana Nikethan (school) but she denied the same and it was also suggested that she was working in Narasannapeta and it was also denied by her. Though it is contended that wife is working and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, there is no supporting material. Only evidence is oath against oath besides that, brother of P.W.1 who is examined on behalf of petitioner deposed that petitioner herein is earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month out of his profession as Sanskrit Pandit and he is hale and healthy and capable of earning. In the cross examination, except putting suggestions that P.W.1 is working and earning money, there is no denial of the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that petitioner herein is earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month as Sanskrit Pandit.
Trial court after assessing evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 held that first and second respondents are entitled for maintenance and accordingly granted Rs.2,500/- to wife and Rs.1500/-
per month to the son.
Now the contention of advocate for revision petitioner is that the said amount is on higher side but in the present days of high cost, the amount of Rs.4,000/- for sustenance of two persons, that too, one among them is a school going child, in my view is not at all on higher side and it is a quite meager amount and therefore, I am not inclined to consider the request of petitioner to reduce the quantum of maintenance.
Considering the material on record and submissions of both sides, I am of the view that trial court has not committed any error in awarding maintenance and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court.
For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 10-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2121 OF 2012 Dated 10-9-2014 Dvs