Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1516 (AP)

Yelleti Srinivas v. State of A. P.

2022-12-27

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2022
JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Revision Petitioner, who was the respondent in M.C.No.162 of 2005, on the file of Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, questioning the order, dated 17.06.2009, whereunder the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam in the maintenance case directed the respondent therein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the first petitioner and monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the second petitioner thereby a total sum of Rs.4,000/- from the date of order and fixed Rs.1,000/- as Advocate fee. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision case will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, before the Court below, according to the averments in the petition is that the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 26.04.2001 at George Club, Anakapalli, according to Hindu religion. At that time, the father of first petitioner presented a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cash and 10 tulas of gold ornaments and 2 Kgs. of silver items and sare samanulu to the respondent. Out of wedlock, the first petitioner and the respondent got the second petitioner. Since the date of marriage, the respondent at the instance of his mother started harassing the first petitioner in a cruel manner demanding additional dowry from her parents. The first petitioner expressed her inability to do so. Then the respondent beaten her indiscriminately and did not provide any food and cloths. She waited till these years with a pond hope that the respondent will change his behaviour. Contra to her expectations, he continued the highhanded acts against the first petitioner. He finally necked out the first petitioner from the matrimonial house demanding to get more amounts and then only he would allow her into their house. So, she gave a report to the police and the police registered F.I.R. under Section 498-A of I.P.C. on 11.02.2005. The first petitioner took shelter at the house of her parents. The respondent proceeded to Saudi Arabia on employment in September, 2002 and returned in June, 2003. Again he went to Dubai in June, 2004 and returned in December, 2004. During the said employment, respondent earned an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. He also got other source of income. The respondent earned more than Rs.50 lakhs. The respondent proceeded to Saudi Arabia on employment in September, 2002 and returned in June, 2003. Again he went to Dubai in June, 2004 and returned in December, 2004. During the said employment, respondent earned an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. He also got other source of income. The respondent earned more than Rs.50 lakhs. He might have invested the amount in the banks or might have lent the same for exorbitant interest. He is getting Rs.20,000/- per month towards interest. First petitioner has no source of income. Hence, the petition. 4. The respondent got filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and resisting the prayer and his contention, in brief, is that first petitioner had qualification of B.A. Degree. The mother of first petitioner promised that she will purchase immovable property, if both are blessed with a child. He got married the first petitioner without receiving any amount. In fact, at the time of marriage negotiations, the respondent and his parents presented 5 tulas of gold ornaments to the first petitioner. He never harassed the first petitioner as alleged. He used to earn Rs.1,200/- per month at the time of marriage as a Supervisor. His father spent huge amount to send the respondent to Saudi Arabia and Dubai. First petitioner left the matrimonial house during sixth month of her pregnancy in March, 2002. First petitioner started tuitions at her parents' house and used to get Rs.2,500/- per month. The family members of the respondent and the marriage elders went to the parents' house of the first petitioner at the advice of the respondent on 05.03.2003, but she bluntly refused to join with him. After he came back to India, he and his friends went to the house of mother of the first petitioner on 29.02.2003, but they shouted and abused them in filthy language. So, he filed O.P.No.270 of 2003 before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for restitution of conjugal rights. In fact, on 11.12.2004 when he came to India after completion of job, he brought clothes and other things to first petitioner and also toys to their minor child. The first petitioner intentionally managed to avoid even for normal cohabitation and made the respondent to suffer due to her cruel conduct. From 10.03.2003 till this day, there is no marital life between him and the first petitioner. The first petitioner intentionally managed to avoid even for normal cohabitation and made the respondent to suffer due to her cruel conduct. From 10.03.2003 till this day, there is no marital life between him and the first petitioner. On 11.01.2005, during night, all of a sudden, first petitioner verified the respondent as to what is the amount with him and he expressed that he became due to some of his friends before going to Dubai and he discharged the debts and still he has to discharge some more minor debts. Then she grew angry and shouted that why he purchased toys and clothes and slept separately. On 12.01.2005 at 10-30 A.M., the mother of the respondent stated pre-plannedly that two wheeler is not running due to some mechanical fault so that respondent and the first petitioner can go by an auto. Then the first petitioner prepared quarreling for no reason. Then the father of respondent and the neighbor by name Seshagiri Rao came out side of their houses, even without hesitation. The respondent has to made deposit of Rs.2 lakhs in the name of first petitioner to start matrimonial life. He has to demand his father to get some property in the name of first petitioner. First petitioner threatened him that she knows how to mend him by giving police report. She threw out her mangalasutras and mattulu on the face of the respondent. Then the respondent went away along with his minor child in an auto to his brother's house. The respondent also went to the house of the brother of first petitioner along with Seshagir Rao. By that time two brothers and mother of first petitioner abused them. Brother of first petitioner by name Appa Rao beat the respondent. She caused danger to his life. He also gave a report in V Town police. On 13.01.2005 police came and called the respondent and his family members and directed them to be present every day on some pretext. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 5. During the course of enquiry before the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, on behalf of the petitioners P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. 6. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 5. During the course of enquiry before the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, on behalf of the petitioners P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. 6. The learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, on perusal of the record granted the impugned order directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.1,000/- to the second petitioner. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful respondent filed the Criminal Revision Case. 7. Now, in deciding the Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said order? 8. P.W.1 before the Court below is no other than the petitioner. P.W.2 is mother of the first petitioner. P.Ws.1 and 2 got filed their chief examination affidavit adverting to the averments in the petition. R.W.1 was no other than the respondent and R.W.2 a neighbour to the house of the respondent. R.W.1 got filed his chief examination affidavit adverting to the averments in the counter and further examined R.W.2 in support of his case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that without there being proper evidence before the Court below, the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, granted an order of maintenance in favour of the petitioners in the maintenance case without any basis and that the above said findings of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, are not at all sustainable under law and facts, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and third respondent i.e., Sri Bandi Srihari, would contend that the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly granted maintenance, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 11. As seen from the pleadings of both the parties before the Court, it is not in dispute that the first petitioner in M.C.No.162 of 2005 was the wife of the respondent therein and during the wedlock, the second petitioner was born to the first petitioner and the respondent. 11. As seen from the pleadings of both the parties before the Court, it is not in dispute that the first petitioner in M.C.No.162 of 2005 was the wife of the respondent therein and during the wedlock, the second petitioner was born to the first petitioner and the respondent. The contention of the petitioners, in brief, is that from the very beginning, the respondent subjected the first petitioner to harassment with a demand to get additional dowry and he used to beat for not bringing the same and ultimately she lodged a report with police. It is specific case of the petitioners that respondent went to Saudi Arabia twice and earned a lot and thereafter, returned back and neglected to maintain the petitioners. 12. On the other hand, respondent pleaded that the mother of first petitioner promised to purchase properties, if the first petitioner and he are blessed with a child and all other allegations are false and it is first petitioner who left the matrimonial home during the pregnancy period and she has own income and she refused to join with the respondent and humiliated him, etc. This is the line of defence of the respondent before the Court below. 13. As seen from the cross examination part of P.W.1, she deposed that at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was given by her parents. She denied that as she studied more education than the respondent, he married her without dowry. She denied a suggestion that her parents promised to purchase property if they got any issues, instead of paying dowry at the time of marriage. She further denied that though her parents promised to present articles as mentioned in para No.2 of her affidavit, but they are not presented. Nothing is elicited during cross examination to disbelieve her evidence. By virtue of specific pleadings in the counter and specific suggestions put-forth before P.W.1, the respondent himself admitted that he was expecting some properties from the parents of the first petitioner, as promised at the time of marriage. So, the first petitioner is able to probablise her contention that there used to be a demand from the respondent to get some amounts. The evidence of P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. So, the first petitioner is able to probablise her contention that there used to be a demand from the respondent to get some amounts. The evidence of P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. Respondent elicited negative answers from the mouth of P.W.2 to the effect that though due to negotiations, P.W.1 joined with the respondent, but, later, she was driven out. So, in the case of this nature, the Court has to look into the preponderance of probabilities. 14. It is to be noticed that the evidence of R.W.1 during cross examination reveals that when the counsel for the petitioners posed a question as to whether he is ready to take back the petitioners, he refused. He deposed in cross examination that now he is not ready to accept the petitioners at present. It is to be noticed that it is the contention of the respondent that first petitioner left the house at the time of pregnancy and later, did not come back. There is no dispute that in the meantime, he went to Saudi Arabia and earned some amounts. He got elicited negative answers from P.W.2 that after negotiations P.W.2 joined with him, but, he again subjected her to harassment. So, it is clear that it is the respondent, who neglected to maintain the petitioners. This Court is not able to understand as to how R.W.1 in cross examination gone to the extent of deposing that he is not ready to accept the petitioner and his son. All these goes to show that respondent was expecting some properties from the petitioners' side even in view of her pleadings and it is quite natural for a woman like P.W.1 to vex with such attitude. Further when she left to parental home to give birth to a child later respondent did not evince any interest to take back her. The conduct of the respondent can be gathered from his answers in cross examination refusing to take back the petitioners. This Court is not able to understand as to how he can evade to take back the second petitioner, who was out of the wedlock between the first petitioner and him. So, the petitioners before the Court below were able to prove with consistent evidence that respondent neglected to maintain them. 15. There is no dispute that the second petitioner being a minor cannot maintain himself. So, the petitioners before the Court below were able to prove with consistent evidence that respondent neglected to maintain them. 15. There is no dispute that the second petitioner being a minor cannot maintain himself. Though P.W.1 denied the suggestions in cross examination as regard the fact that she used to tell tuitions, etc., but there is no evidence placed by the respondent that first petitioner is able to maintain herself. Even according to the respondent, he is technically well qualified and has rich experience. The evidence on record proves that petitioners were unable to maintain themselves. 16. Though R.W.1 deposed that he used to get Rs.1,500/- only per month and examined R.W.2 in support of it and got marked some documents, but the answers spoken by him in cross examination that there is no improvement in his salary is negatived by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Being an able bodied person and being a high experience in certain technical works and having gone to Abroad and having earned some amounts in Abroad, he cannot repudiate his responsibility to provide proper maintenance to the petitioners. He put-forth a theory that he discharged the debts out of the amounts earned from the Gulf countries. He failed to substantiate his contention in anywhere in this regard. 17. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, took into consideration the educational qualifications of the respondent and that he being an able bodied person was in a position to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.1,000/-to the second petitioner. The above said finding referred by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, was also on the reasonable basis. 18. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence on record categorically proves that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners, who were unable to maintain themselves and he has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. Hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal, irregular or suffers with impropriety. 19. Under the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the said order. 20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.