HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Crl.R.C.No. 80 of 2009 Date: 30-06-2010 Between: Marisa Raghava and … Petitioner Smt. Marisa Rajeshwari and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Crl.R.C.No. 80 of 2009 ORDER:
This Court by order dated 19-08-2009 dismissed the Revision Petition for non-prosecution. Subsequently, by order dated 15-02-2010, this Court suo moto reopened the Revision Petition and it was listed on 29-06-2010. But, on that day the petitioner’s counsel was absent and there was no representation both during before lunch session and after lunch session. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted to today under the caption of ‘for dismissal’, after hearing the respondent’s counsel. Today also, the petitioner’s counsel is absent and there is no representation. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter.
Under Section 403 Cr.P.C., this Court has got option to hear or not to hear a party or his counsel in a Revision Petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. When the petitioner’s counsel himself did not appear and does not seek permission to argue, this Court does not feel like giving any more opportunity to the petitioner or his counsel.
This Revision Petition is filed questioning order dated 29- 12-2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in M.C.No.189 of 2004 granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first respondent/wife from the petitioner/husband from the date of filing of the petition in the lower Court.
Admittedly both parties have been living separately since several years prior to filing of the petition in the lower Court. On reading of grounds in this Revision Petition, the main objection of the petitioner/husband is that quantum of maintenance was fixed by the lower Court without having regard to his employment. There is evidence on record to show that the petitioner/husband is owner- cum-driver of a taxi and is also owning houses at Visakhapatnam. Therefore, it cannot be said that the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month granted by the lower Court is in any way excessive. Simply because the first respondent/wife is stated to be a graduate having certificate in DTP, one cannot jump to the conclusion that she is an earning woman. In the absence of proof of any employment, this Court cannot conclude that the first respondent/wife has got means to maintain herself. It is evident that there are criminal cases, marital cases etc., between the parties. In those circumstances, the lower Court rightly allowed the petition filed by the first respondent/wife granting maintenance to her @ Rs.3,000/- per month. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court.
Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date:30-06-2010 YCR