THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.2053 of 2010 Date:23.04.2014 Between:
Maddela Subbaiah . Petitioner.
AND Maddela Raghavamma and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2053 of 2010 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 29-07-2010 in M.C.No.193/2008 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar, Hyderabad whereunder trial Court granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the wife. Aggrieved by the maintenance order, husband preferred present revision.
2. No arguments are advanced on behalf of revision petitioner and request for adjournment is refused.
3. Heard Advocate for first respondent i.e., wife.
4. Learned Advocate for first respondent submitted that there is no dispute with regard to marriage and she is neglected and as she was unable to maintain herself, she filed maintenance case and the Court below rightly granted maintenance. He submitted that revision petitioner was a Village Secretary and he has got extra marital relationship and that aspect is not disputed and there was no reply for the registered notice issued under Ex.P4. He submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Court below and that it is a reasonable order.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this criminal petition is whether the order of the Court below is legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- First respondent filed petition under 125 Cr.P.C contending that her marriage with the revision petitioner was performed on 08-08-1974 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and the revision petitioner got job after the marriage. It is further contended that the revision petitioner wilfully neglected her and she is unable to maintain herself and that she has no source of income.
She further contended that revision petitioner besides his salary, has got agricultural lands and house property and having sufficient means and he wilfully neglected to maintain her. Revision petitioner resisted the claim of wife contending that they both lived under one roof for 40 years and during the wedlock, they were blessed with two male issues and that she voluntarily left the marital home and that he is ready to take her back and that there are no grounds to grant separate maintenance. On these allegations, learned Family Court Judge conducted enquiry, during which, wife is examined as P.W.1 and on her behalf, Exs.P1 to P6 are marked and husband is examined as R.W.1 and on his behalf Exs.R1 to R3 are marked. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Family Court accepted the version of wife and granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. Now here the evidence on record is oath against oath i.e., oath of wife and oath of husband. Wife stated in her evidence that she was ill-treated and her husband developed extra marital relationship with one Subbamma and begot a son by name Satyanarayana. When she categorically deposed about the extra marital relationship, there is no cross-examination disputing the said fact though R.W.1 deposed in his evidence denying the said extra marital relationship. As seen from the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., there was a panchayat in respect of this extra marital relationship. According to revision petitioner he is ready to take back his wife and therefore he is not liable to pay any maintenance. In fact, revision petitioner filed O.P for restitution of conjugal rights and it appears that an exparte decree was passed ordering restitution of conjugal rights, in spite of that, he has not taken any steps to take back his wife to marital home. When husband has got extra marital relationship, normally no wife would like to join husband, unless he disconnects his extra marital relationship, therefore, the decision of wife to live separately is well justified. Now the only thing that has to be seen whether she is capable of maintaining herself. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that she has no source of income and she is completely dependent. On the other hand, R.W.1 worked as Village Secretary and getting pension besides owning agricultural land and house. Considering these aspects, trial Judge awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. As rightly pointed out by Advocate for first respondent, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial Court and it is a well reasoned order. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.
12. For these reasons, revision is dismissed confirming the maintenance order granted by the trial Court.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:23.04.2014 mrb