Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1265 (AP)

MALLADI SUVARCHALA v. MALLADI NAGA SRINIVASA RAO

2014-10-10

B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

body2014
ORDER : B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-wife, having been aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2012 of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali, in Crl.R.P.No.56 of 2012 in reversing and remanding the order dated 22.03.2012 in M.C.No.3 of 2010 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali. 2. The revision petitioner-wife filed a case vide M.C.No.3 of 2010 for maintenance before the trial Court against her husband-revision respondent with the contentions that her marriage with the revision respondent was performed on 15.11.2002 and they lived happily for a period of 3 to 4 months and in the meanwhile the petitioner suffered from back pain and taking treatment for the same, on that reason, revision respondent and his parents harassed her saying she is not fit for marital life but her parents suppressed the same and performed their marriage, that due to unbearable harassment, the petitioner once consumed sleeping pills and tried to commit suicide in the month of March, 2004 and the respondent immediately met her at the hospital and requested her parents to keep her for a few days and later he did not turn up, that the respondent is working as a Senior Medical Representative and drawing a salary of Rs. 23,000/- also having house property at Madhuranagar, Vijayawada and also having landed property at Yembalem village, so the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioner but petitioner is not having any means to maintain herself. On the other hand, the respondent filed counter admitting their marriage contended that the petitioner addicted to sleeping pills even before her marriage for her pain, though the respondent tried to bring back his wife, but in vain, that the respondent is working as a salesman and earning only Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month, that the petitioner is working as a music teacher in Tenali and is earning Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/-per month, hence to dismiss the petition. That on hearing both sides, the trial Court partly allowed the petition directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance to the petitioner at Rs. 2,000/- from the date of filing the petition with costs of Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/-per month, hence to dismiss the petition. That on hearing both sides, the trial Court partly allowed the petition directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance to the petitioner at Rs. 2,000/- from the date of filing the petition with costs of Rs. 500/- and the petitioner is directed to open a Saving Bank Account with any Nationalised Bank and intimate the bank account number to the respondent to enable him to pay the maintenance amount by remitting it to the said account, holding that the respondent failed to prove that prior to consulting Dr.Purna Chandra Rao after marriage, the petitioner was in the habit of taking sleeping pills for her pain and even the respondent failed to examine Dr.Purna Chandra Rao, though Court issued hand over summons on the request of the respondent but produced a certificate issued by the said doctor which did not show the petitioner suffered from back pain due to less of one limb and it was from her childhood, and even the petitioner submitted that she suffered from back pain due to pumping bore well by hand for which she consumed over dosage of sleeping pills, due to which she admitted in the hospital except that there is no other dispute between herself and her husband and for the back pain only the respondent is harassing her. 3. The revision-respondent having been aggrieved by the order of the trial Judge, preferred Crl.R.P.No.56 of 2012 on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Guntur at Tenali, who allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the trial Judge in M.C.No.3 of 2010 and remanded the same for fresh enquiry by giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce medical evidence holding that unless medical evidence is adduced, it cannot be said whether 1st respondent was born with congenital deformity of sacralisation of 5th vertebra or she was suffering from back pain due to heavy work at the residence of husband and it is premature to express any opinion on this point. 4. 4. Impugning the same, the wife preferred the present revision with the contentions in the grounds that the order of the learned lower revisional Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the order impugned is perverse and the lower revisional Court failed to see that the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are summary in nature, that since the relationship between the spouse is admitted, the trial Court has given a categorical finding in respect of staying away by the petitioner/wife from the matrimonial house based on sound reasoning, that it should not have interfered with the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-wife reiterated the same during course of hearing. 5. On the other hand, the respondent-husband herein, contended that for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing illegality, irregularity and impropriety to interfere with the order of the lower revisional Court, hence to dismiss the revision. 6. Perused the material on record. The revision for maintainability of any bar under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is taken up to decide under Section 483 and 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Now the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the impugned order, dated 30.11.2012 of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Guntur at Tenali, in Crl.R.P. No.56 of 2012 in reversing the order dated 22.03.2012 in M.C. No.3 of 2010 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali and remanding the matter for fresh enquiry to adduce medical evidence, is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal, if so, with what observations? 2. To what result? Point No.1: 8. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties as wife and husband and their marriage took place on 15.11.2002 and consummated and they lived for some time amicably. As observed by the two Courts below there was undisputedly sufferance from back pain to the M.C. Petitioner-wife and treated by doctors by quack and qualified and even on Homoeopathy, Allopathy and Ayurvedic if any. As observed by the two Courts below there was undisputedly sufferance from back pain to the M.C. Petitioner-wife and treated by doctors by quack and qualified and even on Homoeopathy, Allopathy and Ayurvedic if any. As per version of the M.C. respondent/husband to get over from the sufferance of back pain, the M.C. petitioner/wife used to take heavy dose of sleeping pills due to which on one occasion she was admitted in hospital and treated and that her brother came and took her to her parents house with his consent. The revision petitioner's case is that though he made efforts in taking her back unconditionally but for his saying he offered to take her back in the event of her giving undertaking before the Court that she was suffering from back pain since childhood and her husband and his family members are not responsible for any untoward incidents if happens in future. It is therefrom not yielded any result to compromise even to compromise even to compromise even, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalath in this regard. That itself speaks his conditional inviting his wife to conjugal life tantamounts to neglect; leave about sufferance from back pain is congenital deformity of sacralisation of the ribs at L5 (Lumbar 5) of the vertebra as claimed by the husband, or of what the wife claimed because of the stress and strain as result of heavy household work that she was compelled to attend besides cooking, washing dishes and clothes, to fetch water from bore-well by using hand pump. It is practically without considering the scope of the maintenance case is summary in nature, the learned Sessions Judge while sitting in revision against the order of the learned Magistrate awarding maintenance and remanded the matter for adducing medical evidence by the parties about back pain to know as to whether it is due to congenital or from heavy household work. In fact, the scope of revision for the learned Sessions Judge under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is very limited as to impropriety, illegality or incorrectness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the maintenance case. The dispute is not even on the quantum but practically any neglect or refusal to maintain the wife while admitting the relationship. In fact, the scope of revision for the learned Sessions Judge under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is very limited as to impropriety, illegality or incorrectness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the maintenance case. The dispute is not even on the quantum but practically any neglect or refusal to maintain the wife while admitting the relationship. The very contention of the respondent/husband is the wife did not agree to give undertaking that the back pain is congenital and himself and his parents are not responsible if anything happens to her in future, which itself clearly speaks about his putting a condition to allow her to join him. When there is relationship of wife and husband more particularly under Hindu Mythology from the concept of Ardhanareeshwara, man and his wife are embodiment of unique personality by drowning and gloss over any little differences or feelings of one against the other adversely, if any, and to live amicably as unified personality. If this concept is being kept in mind by the husband, the question of his insisting for such meaningless undertaking by wife practically does not arise. It appears only misunderstandings led to the lack of conjugal life between the parties but in fact none last love to the other. Wisdom definitely prevail to understand the one by the other in marital life but the husband's putting a condition of giving undertaking by his wife to invite her to conjugal life would definitely nothing but insisting her and same would have driven her to feel insecure. There are no such circumstances or ill-feelings for one to feel insecure in the hands of other in this case from the factual matrix. In fact from the above, when it is the summary trial, as the husband having means and the wife having no sufficient means and living at the mercy of her parents, the trial Court was rightly awarded maintenance to the wife. When there is no illegality or impropriety in the said order of the learned Magistrate that is impugned before the learned Sessions Judge, who while sitting in revision to reverse much less to remand is nothing but magnifying the problem which is the core issue to the lis. When there is no illegality or impropriety in the said order of the learned Magistrate that is impugned before the learned Sessions Judge, who while sitting in revision to reverse much less to remand is nothing but magnifying the problem which is the core issue to the lis. Needless to say any such issue if necessary can be adverted to and agitated in any matrimonial matter between the couple if at all by left open that too when the husband failed to examine Dr. Purna Chandra Rao, who examined the M.C. petitioner for reasons best known to him, even though asked the Court for recording said doctor's evidence through commission. In fact, having taken handover summons, the revision petitioner failed to examine the doctor, to know whether the back pain is a problem of congenital by birth less of one rib i.e. L5 vertebra. But, that is not a ground for the husband to refuse to maintain his wife much less to desert her and much less to demand for undertaking as it is a problem she got from childhood and himself and his parents are not responsible in future if it happens in her life in future, to allow her for conjugal life. Thereby remand of the matter by the lower revisional Court is not only beyond the scope of jurisdiction but also unsustainable including in setting aside the order of maintenance and without even providing the existing order to serve as interim maintenance. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. Point No.2: 9. In the result, the revision is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2012 ( Crl.R.P. No.56 of 2012) herein by confirming the order dated 22.03.2012 in M.C. No.3 of 2010 of the learned Magistrate and further six months time is granted to the revision respondent-M.C. respondent to pay all arrears besides the liability to pay regular maintenance. Needless to say, any non-payment entitles the wife to execute and recover. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision, shall stand closed.