Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 721 (AP)

K. Venkateswara Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-11-18

K.SURESH REDDY

body2020
JUDGMENT K.Suresh Reddy, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated 11.06.2013 passed in M.C.No.20 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District, whereby, 2nd respondent being the wife and 3rd respondent being the daughter of the revision petitioner were awarded maintenance in M.C.No.20 of 2011. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent / State. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent was performed on 19.4.2004 and their marriage has been consummated and they lead happy marital life for some time, out of their wedlock, they were blessed with 3rd respondent. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent presented certain amount of cash, gold and household articles to the respondent. Having been not satisfied with the said dowry, revision petitioner started harassing the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry. As 2nd respondent did not choose to pay the additional amount, finally, he deserted them. Thereafter, he filed H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet for restitution of conjugal rights with false and frivolous allegations. In the meantime, mediation took place and they compromised before the Lok Adalat. Again, on 20.1.2009, revision petitioner left the petitioners at her parents' house and deserted them. Though, the parents of 2nd respondent raised several mediations for their re-union, revision petitioner did not choose to join them. As such, 2nd respondent filed D.V.C.No.3 of 2009 before the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur seeking permission to reside along with the revision petitioner. Subsequently, revision petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2011 before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur seeking divorce. As they are unable to maintain themselves, they filed the above said maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') before the trial Court claiming maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd respondent and Rs.4,000/- to the 3rd respondent per month from the revision petitioner alleging that they were neglected by the revision petitioner and they have no means to maintain themselves. The respondent is working as a Salesman in cloth showroom and earning salary of Rs.12,000/- besides having immovable properties. 4. The respondent is working as a Salesman in cloth showroom and earning salary of Rs.12,000/- besides having immovable properties. 4. The revision petitioner contested the said maintenance case by filing counter and contended that the 2nd respondent voluntarily deserted the matrimonial house, as such, she is not entitled for any maintenance. He further contended that the 2nd respondent is a divorcee and she was having a male child through her first husband and after obtaining divorce from her first husband, the revision petitioner married the 2nd respondent. He also contended that the family members of 2nd respondent insisted him to sell away the house at Pedakurapadu village, for which, he did not accept, on that reason, she left his company. The learned trial Judge after going through the entire material on record granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to the 2nd respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 3rd respondent (Total Rs.2,500/- ). 5. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision case praying to set-aside the order dated 11.06.2013 passed in M.C.No.20 of 2011. 6. Coming to the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the marital relationship between the revision petitioner and 2nd respondent and the paternal relationship between the revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent is not in dispute. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is admittedly the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner and 3rd respondent is the daughter of the revision petitioner as he only admitted in his counter that 2nd respondent is a divorcee and she was having a male child through her first husband and after obtaining divorce from her first husband, he married the 2nd respondent. 7. It is an admitted fact that since 2009, they are living separately on account of the disputes arose between them. He contended that 2nd respondent is running provision shop and getting income of Rs.1,000/- per day. He also contended that the 2nd respondent is having a house site worth of Rs.20,00,000/- and that she is having sufficient means to maintain themselves. But, the revision petitioner did not produce any material to substantiate his version. As a husband, the revision petitioner is bound under law to provide maintenance to the respondents 2 & 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a Salesman in Chandana Brothers and getting salary, besides having immovable properties. But, the revision petitioner did not produce any material to substantiate his version. As a husband, the revision petitioner is bound under law to provide maintenance to the respondents 2 & 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a Salesman in Chandana Brothers and getting salary, besides having immovable properties. The oral and documentary evidence on record clearly shows that the revision petitioner has neglected to maintain them, though having sufficient means. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that awarding maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the 2nd respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 3rd respondent (Total Rs.2,500/- ) by the learned trial Judge is not excessive and is reasonable and justifiable. Hence, there are no valid grounds warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the order, dated 11.06.2013 passed in M.C.No.20 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District, is hereby confirmed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.