Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1116 (AP)

Nistala Muralikrishna v. State Of A. P.

2022-10-21

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2022
ORDER : The Criminal Revision Case is filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is the respondent in M.C.No.199 of 2007, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code („Cr.P.C.? for short), impugning the order, dated 29.04.2009, where under the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, allowed the maintenance case filed by the second respondent herein in the capacity of the petitioner therein, ordering the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner, who is his daughter. So, the second respondent is no other than the daughter of the petitioner, who filed M.C.No.199 of 2007, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 2. The brief case of the petitioner in the M.C.No.199 of 2007, according to the averments in the petition before the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is as follows: (i) The marriage between the mother of the petitioner and the respondent took place on 25.11.1992 at Sivalayam Temple, I-Town, Visakhapatnam, in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Their marriage was a love marriage and it was consummated. During the wedlock, the petitioner was born to her mother and the respondent on 24.03.1997. In fact, the mother of the petitioner joined with the respondent in the matrimonial home with all hopes. Her dreams were shattered due to illegal acts of the respondent. He developed in the absence of the petitioner’s mother illicit contact with another lady. The mother of the petitioner questioned the same. The respondent promised not to do such acts in future. Since the date of marriage, the respondent used to harass the mother of the petitioner for silly reasons. He used to collect the salary from the petitioner’s mother and used to run the family with the income derived on tuitions. The petitioner’s mother suffered both physically and mentally in the hands of the respondent. Subsequent to the birth of the petitioner, the respondent neglected the petitioner and her mother. On 24.04.2006 the respondent necked out the petitioner and her mother in the matrimonial house and threatened them with dire consequences. The petitioner is depending on the mercy of her mother. She is not having any source of income to maintain herself. The respondent is working in Visakha Vimal Vidyalayam and getting monthly income of Rs.12,000/- and he is also having landed properties at Srikakulam and getting Rs.1 lakh. The petitioner is depending on the mercy of her mother. She is not having any source of income to maintain herself. The respondent is working in Visakha Vimal Vidyalayam and getting monthly income of Rs.12,000/- and he is also having landed properties at Srikakulam and getting Rs.1 lakh. The respondent completely neglected the petitioner and is not looking after her welfare. Hence, the petition. 3. The respondent in the M.C.No.199 of 2007, who is the Revision Petitioner herein, got filed a counter before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, denying the case of the petitioner, but, admitted the relationship between the petitioner and him. His contention in brief is that he never refused or neglected to maintain the petitioner and her mother at any point of time. Mother of the petitioner on her own accord without informing the respondent left the company of the respondent along with the petitioner. He spent all his earnings and savings to meet the luxurious needs of the mother of the petitioner. The respondent is getting Rs.10,000/- per month and he is compelled to pay thousands of rupees towards interest to his creditor on the amounts borrowed earlier to meet the demands of the petitioner’s mother. He has to look after his old aged ailing father and he sought dismissal of the petition. 4. Before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, the mother of the petitioner also filed O.P.No.760 of 2007 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, with a prayer to dissolve the marriage between her and the respondent. The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, clubbed the M.C.No.199 of 2007 and O.P.No.760 of 2007 and recorded the evidence in common and disposed both the matters by a common order, dated 29.04.2009. So, in such a course, the evidence available on behalf of the petitioner in maintenance case is PW.1 and PW.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. The evidence available on behalf of the respondent is RW.1 and he did not mark any documents. 5. The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, by virtue of a common order, dated 29.04.2009, in so far as the M.C.No.199 of 2007 is concerned, allowed the same in part directing the respondent therein to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner towards monthly maintenance from the date of order as against the prayer of the petitioner to grant a sum of Rs.3,000/-. 6. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful respondent in M.C.No.199 of 2007 filed the present Criminal Revision Case, questioning the order of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the second respondent towards the maintenance. 7. The contention of the Revision Petitioner, according to the grounds in the Criminal Revision Case is that, the order of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is against law, improper and incorrect and without considering the evidence in proper perspective. The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, did not look into that the second respondent is in the custody of her mother, who is B.Ed. Teacher, working in Zilla Parishad High School and getting salary of Rs.11,000/- per month. The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, failed to see that the Revision Petitioner obtained loans for luxuries of the mother of the second respondent and is not in a position to maintain himself. There is no evidence to show that the Revision Petitioner has got financial capacity to pay maintenance to the second respondent. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is liable to be allowed. 8. Now in deciding the Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is: “whether the petitioner in M.C.No.199 of 2007, who is the daughter of the present Revision Petitioner, is able to prove that she is unable to maintain herself and the respondent therein i.e., Revision Petitioner herein neglected to maintain her, having sufficient means to maintain her?” 9. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner would contain in accordance with the grounds of Revision Case. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, Advocate, representing the first respondent on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor, represented that he is only a formal party. None argued on behalf of the second respondent. 10. There is no dispute that the petitioner in M.C.No.199 of 2007 was aged about 10 years as on the date of petition and she is the daughter of the respondent therein. There is no dispute that the petitioner as on the date of filing of the maintenance case was in the custody of her mother. There is also no dispute that the mother of the petitioner in the maintenance case was also working in School and was getting some income. There is no dispute that the petitioner as on the date of filing of the maintenance case was in the custody of her mother. There is also no dispute that the mother of the petitioner in the maintenance case was also working in School and was getting some income. There is no dispute that the petitioner is in the custody of her mother and in the cause title itself the petitioner is described as minor, represented by her natural guardian, her mother by name Nistala Velangani Usharani. So, the fact that the petitioner in the maintenance case was a minor as on the date of filing of the Revision Petition itself goes to prove that the petitioner in the maintenance case is unable to maintain herself. The respondent in the maintenance case cannot contend that as the petitioner was in the custody of her mother, he need not pay maintenance. The evidence is adduced before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, to the effect that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioner and ultimately the mother of the petitioner was necked out along with the petitioner. There is no dispute that the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, found favour with the case of the petitioner even in the divorce O.P. filed by the mother of the petitioner in O.P.No.760 of 2007, on the ground of cruelty and allowed the O.P.No.760 of 2007 after analyzing the evidence on record. However, it is not within the provisions of this Court to adjudicate the findings in so far as the O.P.No.760 of 2007 are concerned. So, it is crystal clear that the Revision Petitioner, who is the respondent in the maintenance case, has no say as to why he could not claim the custody of the petitioner from the custody of her mother, if really, his contention that the mother of the petitioner left conjugal relationship, is true. So, the evidence on record goes to prove clinchingly that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioner, though she was a child as on the date of petition. 11. Coming to the means of the respondent, there is no dispute that he is working and he is drawing some salary as on the date of his evidence also. So, the evidence on record goes to prove clinchingly that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioner, though she was a child as on the date of petition. 11. Coming to the means of the respondent, there is no dispute that he is working and he is drawing some salary as on the date of his evidence also. There was evidence let in before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam and the mother of the petitioner was examined as P.W.1, who deposed that the minor is dependent on the mercy of PW.1 and she had no source of income and respondent is a Teacher, who is getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Even in the counter, the respondent admitted that he is getting Rs.10,000/- per month. So, it is not a case where the respondent in the maintenance case has no means. He admitted that he is working elsewhere and he is getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. During the course of cross examination, he denied that he is getting gross salary of Rs.12,000/-. But he did not produce his salary certificate. So, the respondent in the maintenance case as RW.1 is quietly silent to file any salary certificate to disclose his real income. The admitted facts goes to reveal according to him, he is getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is a case where the respondent has means to maintain the petitioner, who is his daughter and who is the minor as on the date of the petition and the evidence on record clingchingly proves that he neglected the petitioner. So, in my considered view, the petitioner in M.C.No.199 of 2007, before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is able to establish successfully that being the minor daughter, she is neglected by the respondent and she is unable to maintain herself and the respondent had means to maintain herself. 12. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, though she prayed for Rs.3,000/- per month, the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of order. So, when the respondent before the trial Court suppressed his income, but admitted his income to a tune of Rs.10,000/- per month, he could as well afford to pay Rs.2,000/- to his minor daughter. So, when the respondent before the trial Court suppressed his income, but admitted his income to a tune of Rs.10,000/- per month, he could as well afford to pay Rs.2,000/- to his minor daughter. Hence, I am of the considered view that the quantum of maintenance that is granted by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is not high and it is on reasonable basis alone. 13. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view, that the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, dated 29.04.2009 in M.C.No.199 of 2007 does not suffer with any irregularity, illegality and impropriety and the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, rightly appreciated the contentions and rightly granted maintenance to the petitioner, as such, there are no merits in the Revision Case, which is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.