Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 957 (AP)

M. Anil Kumar v. M. Suhasini

2011-11-04

B.N.RAO NALLA

body2011
JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner – husband, M. Anil Kumar, assailing the order in M.C. No.127 of 2004 dated 10-01-2005 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of JHCBB Case – cum – Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. 2. The revision petitioner is husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the M.C. before the trail Court. 4. The case of the petitioners before the trial Court, in brief, is as under: The marriage of petitioner No.1 with the respondent took place on 20-12-1996. Their marriage is an arranged one. Respondent was working as Physical Education Teacher in Nehru Memorial Government Boys School and earning Rs.7,000/- per month and he was also working as Coach of Table Tennis and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. After the marriage, they lived happily for four months and thereafter respondent harassed her for additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-. Out of their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born on 18-04-1998 in the seventh month of pregnancy as a pre-matured baby and petitioner No.3 was born on 17-09-2000. Respondent was addicted to alcohol and used to come to the house in the late hours and harass her without any reason and he put her and their children to starvation, as such, they are residing with the parents of petitioner No.1. Since petitioner No.2 is a pre-matured boy, he requires regular medication. Petitioner No.2 is studying first class and petitioner No.3 is studying L.K.G. For their livelihood i.e. food, educational, miscellaneous and medical expenses etc., each of them requires Rs.4,000/-per month and presently the same is being borne by the mother of petitioner No.1. Hence, they claimed maintenance at Rs.4,000/- per month for each of them from the respondent. 5. Respondent filed his counter denying all the allegations made against him. He admitted his relationship with the petitioners. He denied the allegations of additional dowry, beating and harassing petitioner No.1 and putting the petitioners under starvation. His case is that the petitioner is a very adamant, suspicious nature and used to pickup quarrels with him very often and frequently used to go to her parents house. She gave several complaints against him to the police with the advice of her sister, who is an employee of Task Force. His case is that the petitioner is a very adamant, suspicious nature and used to pickup quarrels with him very often and frequently used to go to her parents house. She gave several complaints against him to the police with the advice of her sister, who is an employee of Task Force. On demand of petitioner No.1 and unable to bear her harassment, respondent took a separate premises for their family at Saidabad, but she tried to shift the family to a remote place even without his knowledge and when he objected for the same, she stated that she would shift her family wherever she wants and she does not want to live with him. Even the Psychiatrist, who treated petitioner No.1, reported that she is a very adamant and not listening him. Hence, he was compelled to leave petitioner No.1 and file O.P. No.94 of 2004 against her for divorce and the same is pending. His further case is that petitioner No.1 is working as a Teacher and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. He offered to pay Rs.500/-per month to each petitioner towards their maintenance. 6. To prove her case, petitioner No.1 got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. On behalf of the respondent, he got himself examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R-1. 7. Considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court awarded Rs.800/- per month to each of the petitioner against the respondent towards their maintenance from the date of application i.e. 24-06-2004. Assailing the quantum of compensation, respondent filed this revision. 8. Now the case of the respondent is that he sold his own house for Rs.2,50,000/- for the purpose of his sister’s marriage and out of that deposited Rs.50,000/- in the savings account of petitioner No.1, which is admitted by herself in her evidence, and he is living in a rented premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and the educational expenses of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are being borne by him. He has aged mother suffering from chronic diseases and he has to maintain her and also his sister and unemployed brother-in-law. Further, petitioner No.1 is working as Nurse in Yashoda Hospital and earning Rs.3,000/- per month apart from running a beauty parlour and earning a very good amount. He has aged mother suffering from chronic diseases and he has to maintain her and also his sister and unemployed brother-in-law. Further, petitioner No.1 is working as Nurse in Yashoda Hospital and earning Rs.3,000/- per month apart from running a beauty parlour and earning a very good amount. However, the trail Court failed to see the above facts and erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.800/-per month to each of the petitioners. 9. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is neither an employee nor running any beauty parlour and earning any amount. She has no source of any income. Herself and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are solely depending on her parents. However, as against their request of Rs.4,000/- per month to each petitioner, the trial Court awarded only a sum of Rs.800/- per month to each of them which is very meager and not sufficient for eking out their livelihood apart from meeting the expenses of education, medicines and house rent etc. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the maintenance awarded by the trial Court is excessive? 11. Though the case of the respondent is that petitioner No.1 is working as Teacher in a School or Nurse in Yashoda Hospital and also running a beauty parlour and earning sufficient amount for livelihood, no material is placed before this Court to prove the same when petitioner No.1 specifically denied the same. He has also not brought any material before this Court to show that he is residing in a rented premises. His evidence shows that he filed O.P. No.94 of 2004 for divorce on the ground of cruelty and the same was pending in 2004. But, the present stage of the said O.P. was also not brought to the notice of this Court. However, when married, it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children. On the other hand, it is the case of petitioner No.1 that she has no source of income and all the petitioners are depending on her parents. Ex.R-1 marked on behalf of the respondent himself shows that his gross salary was Rs.6,460/- per month in November, 2004. By now, the salary of the respondent may have been become doubled. The trial Court awarded only a sum of Rs.800/- to each of the petitioner towards their monthly maintenance. 12. Ex.R-1 marked on behalf of the respondent himself shows that his gross salary was Rs.6,460/- per month in November, 2004. By now, the salary of the respondent may have been become doubled. The trial Court awarded only a sum of Rs.800/- to each of the petitioner towards their monthly maintenance. 12. In the circumstances, though it is the case of the respondent that he is paying the educational expenses of the children, looking after his mother, who is a septuagenarian and suffering from chronic diseases, maintaining his sister, unemployed brother-in-law, living in a rented house and has no capacity to pay the maintenance awarded by the trial Court, even if he places any material to prove the same, there are no grounds to reduce the maintenance less than Rs.800/- since the same is also too low amount to eke out once livelihood in a present day situation. Hence, it cannot be said that the maintenance awarded by the trial Court to the petitioners is excessive. The point is, accordingly, answered. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trail Court, as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the impugned order in M.C. No.127 of 2004 dated 10.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of JHCBB Case – cum – Additional Family Court, Hyderabad.