HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1665 OF 2010 Dated 24-7-2014 Between:
Madhukar Reddy.
And:
Petitioner.
The State of A.P.represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1665 OF 2010 ORDER:
This revision is against order dated 27-4-2010 in M.C.No.72 of 2008 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: Second respondent herein filed the above referred M.C. against revision petitioner contending that there were differences between the revision petitioner and second respondent herein and due to those disputes, they are living separately and the petitioner herein neglected to maintain second respondent herein and her son having sufficient means and claimed a sum of Rs.7,500/-for herself and another Rs.7,500/- to her son. The petitioner herein resisted the said claim contending that the second respondent herein made his life miserable involving him into unnecessary and unwarranted debts and contended that he has very poor sight and not able to move freely without the assistance and that he is living with the help of an assistant to look after his welfare and that he cannot provide separate maintenance as the house property was given to second and third respondents herein. On these allegations, judge, Family Court examined two witnesses on behalf of wife and one witness on behalf of husband and on a consideration of their oral testimony, granted maintenance to wife only and refused to grant maintenance to son as he was a major. Learned Family Court judge granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- to wife. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Both advocates argued on many points that are not covered by the pleadings in the lower court. The main point on which advocate for revision petitioner harped is that petitioner has now retired from service and the trial court while taking into consideration his salary, granted Rs.5000/- but now he cannot pay that much of amount out of his pension as he has to meet his own expenses besides the expenses of assistant engaged by him to look after his welfare because of his poor sight.
On the other hand, objection of the advocate for second respondent is that petitioner is freely moving and in fact, attending courts in respect of other cases and his objection is only to avoid payment of maintenance and the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month in the present days of high cost is not even sufficient and that there are no grounds to interfere.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the order of the court below is legal, proper and correct?
POINT:
There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. Learned trial judge granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to wife taking the salary of petitioner as Rs.38,000/- per month. Now according to petitioner, he is retired from service and he has to live on his pension only. There is no material placed before this court as to the quantum of pension the petitioner is receiving.
Scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited one and the court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot go into detailed examination of evidence of both sides.
This court has to see whether any illegality is committed by the court below contrary to the material available on record. As seen from the order of the trial court, the plea of his poor sight and engaging an assistant to look after the welfare of the petitioner was raised before trial court and considering the same, only Rs.5,000/- is granted though the petitioner was getting a salary of Rs.38,000/- as against the claim of Rs.7,500/-.
If there are any changed circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the same court by invoking Section 127 Cr.P.C. but on the ground of changed circumstances, he cannot urge this court to modify the quantum or set aside the order.
The scope of this court is only to examine whether any illegality or irregularity is committed by the court below and correct it if any such illegal or irregularity is committed.
On a scrutiny of material, I do not find any illegality or incorrect findings in the order of the trial court and the learned trial judge rightly appreciated evidence on record and granted reasonable amount towards maintenance.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court and the revision is devoid of merits.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the maintenance granted by the court below.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 24-7-2014.
Note:
C.C. in two days. Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1665 OF 2010 Dated 24-7-2014