IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9563 OF 2012 Between:
Yerranagula Ravi Prasad …. Petitioners/Respondent V/s.
Yerranagula Laxmi & Ors. … Respondents/Petitioners Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for Respondents : Sri P.Srinivas Dayal for R1 & R2 Public Prosecutor for R-3 The court made the following: [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9563 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in Criminal Revision Petition No. 39 of 2011 dated 09/01/2012 whereunder orders in MC.No. 19 of 2006 dated 13/04/2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali, Srikakulam district, are confirmed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The petitioner herein is husband and respondents 1 and 2 are wife and son of the petitioner.
4. Advocate for petitioner submitted that first respondent on her own left matrimonial home and there is no negligence on the part of petitioner herein, but the trial court and Revisional Court without considering the same awarded maintenance to the first petitioner also and the same is also liable to be set aside. He submitted that from the evidence, it is clear that first respondent herein i.e., wife left matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and her intention is only to get property and maintenance and she is not interested to lead marital life, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with this criminal petition.
6. On behalf of first respondent herein three witnesses are examined and on behalf of petitioner herein two witnesses are examined.
7. Considering the oral evidence of both parties, the trial court held that wife proved that she is the legally wedded wife and that petitioner herein neglected both wife and child and that respondents 1 and 2 herein are unable to maintain themselves. Considering the same, the trial court granted a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to the first respondent herein and another sum of Rs.2,500/- to the second respondent herein as monthly maintenance and the same is confirmed by the Revisional Court in the Revision preferred by the petitioner herein.
8. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. Admittedly the marriage was performed on 14/5/2002 and when the first respondent was carrying pregnancy disputes started and they are living separately. It is clear from the evidence that petitioner herein is a employee and getting a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month since 2005.
9. Considering the income of petitioner herein trial court awarded a total sum of Rs.5,000/- i.e., Rs.2,500/- each to the wife and son towards maintenance and the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the same after considering the evidence of both parties with reference to the contentions and rival contentions of both sides.
10. Now the main contention of the petitioner is that as wife left marital home on her own and though petitioner herein is ready to take back, she is not joining intentionally as such she is not entitled for maintenance. This objection was raised before the trial court and the learned Magistrate observed that petitioner herein has to take necessary steps against wife for joining her to the matrimonial home and such relief cannot be granted in a maintenance case. Learned Magistrate was right in observing so. If really the petitioner is interested in getting back his wife to the matrimonial home he should take necessary legal steps like filing O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights etc. and without taking any legal recourse simply contending that because he is ready to take back her she cannot get any maintenance is not tenable.
11. For the above reasons, I am of the view that both trial court and revisional courts have not committed any error or illegality in awarding maintenance to wife also.
12. Now coming to quantum, advocate for petitioner submitted that Rs.2,500/- per month is on higher side and requested this court to reduce the same. But considering the financial status of the petitioner and the present day’s cost of living, I feel that the amount of Rs.2,500/- for each, wife and son is quite reasonable and that there are no grounds to interfere with the quantum.
13. For the above reasons, this Criminal Petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits.
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
14/08/2014
I s L.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9563 OF 2012 Circulation No. 66 Date: 14/08/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43