Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 583 (AP)

Govala Ramana v. Govala Vishnu Lalitha

2020-09-08

K.SURESH REDDY

body2020
JUDGMENT K.Suresh Reddy, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order dated 31.08.2007 passed in M.C.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kakinada. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. The facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the 1st respondent on 24.02.2000 at Vakalapudi, Kakinada and out of their wedlock; they were blessed with 2nd respondent. It is alleged by the 1st respondent that at the time of the marriage an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- cash and 12 sovereigns of gold has been paid to the petitioner herein. After the marriage, the 1st respondent joined the matrimonial home and lead happy marital life for some time. Thereafter, the petitioner used to harass the 1st respondent by demanding additional dowry. On one occasion, the petitioner beat the 1st respondent black and blue and she was admitted in railway hospital as the petitioner was working as constable in Railway Protection Force. On the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner. Inspite of repeated mediations, the petitioner used to harass the 1st respondent both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry. 4. The petitioner filed a counter admitting the relationship but denying all the allegations. He contended that the 1st respondent is in the habit of leaving matrimonial home without any reasons and she is a quarrelsome lady. It is also contended by him that the 1st respondent left the matrimonial home without any reason. He admitted that he is working as constable in Railway Protection Force. 5. During the course of enquiry 1st respondent was examined as P.W.1 and her mother was examined as P.W.2. Revision petitioner himself examined as R.W.1 and also examined R.Ws.2 and 3 on his behalf. 6. After going through the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate partly allowed the maintenance and granted maintenance of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a present revision before this Court. 7. This Court has gone through the entire evidence on record. Admitted facts are that marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent took place on 24.02.2000. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a present revision before this Court. 7. This Court has gone through the entire evidence on record. Admitted facts are that marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent took place on 24.02.2000. The petitioner did not choose to deny the relationship. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a Constable in Railway protection Force and he is also admitted that the 1st respondent has complained to the departmental authorities against the harassment made by the petitioner. 8. It is also admitted by the petitioner that enquiry has been conducted against him as per the report given by the 1st respondent and punishment was imposed with holding the increment of the petitioner. Non filing of the said enquiry report, can be presumed that the petitioner used to harass the 1st respondent and she is justified in living away from the petitioner. 9. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, the petitioner is working as constable in Railway Protection Force and he is a public servant. The amount awarded by the court bellow is Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month to the 2nd respondent. The amount awarded to the respondents is very meager and holds good. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that granting maintenance to the respondents 1 & 2 is reasonable and justifiable. Hence, there are no valid grounds warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the order dated 31.08.2007 passed in M.C.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada is hereby confirmed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.