Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 849 (AP)

Ragimani Gangadhar v. Ragimani Padmavathi

2022-09-08

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2022
JUDGMENT K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner/husband aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.4.2021 passed in Crl.A. No. 211 of 2017 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby and where under the interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month granted in favour of the wife who is 1st respondent herein in I.A. No. 66 of 2017 in DVC No. 52 of 2016 on 11.8.2017 by the learned Magistrate is confirmed by dismissing the appeal of the husband. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein after are referred to as husband and wife for the petitioner and 1st respondent respectively. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows; Originally the wife filed a complaint against the husband under Sections 23 and 28 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the DVC Act') in DVC No. 52 of 2016 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool. During pendency of the said case the wife filed I.A. No. 66 of 2016 for grant of monthly interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-. The learned Magistrate partly allowed the same and granted interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month. 4. Against the said order, the husband filed Crl.A. No. 211 of 2017 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal by confirming the interim maintenance granted by the trial Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire material on record. 6. There is no dispute that the parties are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnised on 20.4.2014. After the marriage, both of them led marital life for some time and from 20.7.2014 they are living separate from each other due to some disputes and differences arose between them. On the report given by the wife, the husband and his relatives were also prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. On the report given by the wife, the husband and his relatives were also prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. 7. Learned counsel for the husband contended that in the complaint filed by the wife she did not reveal the information about the case filed by her in F.C.M.C. No. 17 of 2015 on the file of the Judge, Family Court claiming maintenance and the same was dismissed without awarding any maintenance. However, against the said order, the wife filed Revision in Crl.R.C. No. 3322 of 2016 and moved Crl.R.C.M.P. No. 5192 of 2016 before the common High Court and the said Crl.R.C.M.P. was partly allowed on 13.12.2016 by giving interim direction to the extent that the husband shall pay interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- in favour of respondent. It is alleged that suppressing that part of the maintenance granted in her favour, she resorted in filing DVC Case claiming maintenance of Rs. 25,000/-. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Judgment of this High Court in Mohammed Yaseen Baba Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 419 and contended that the husband cannot be made liable to pay maintenance awarded in each of the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and under DVC Act etc., 9. This Court has gone through the said judgment. It did not hold that simultaneous proceedings under different enactments cannot be made. In fixing quantum of maintenance, it would be relevant in bringing to notice of the Court about filing of parallel proceedings for maintenance. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 , it is held, 'Directions on overlapping jurisdictions: It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.' 10. On the contrary, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that these facts were already brought to the notice of the learned Court below and as such there is no suppression of facts. It is thus contended that the trial Court has rightly passed an order in awarding maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the wife and it is rightly confirmed by the Appellate Court, hence this petition may be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband further submits that the husband is getting an amount of only Rs. 48,000/- per month as salary and is incurring medical expenses of Rs. 12,000/- per month for his mother. It is also submitted for the husband that the wife is a Post Graduate and having Ac. 30.00 cents of agricultural lands at Bollavaram village and having 1/3rd share in it and having fixed deposits to a tune Rs. 14 lakhs. He further stated for the husband that the wife can maintain herself without there being any financial support from her husband and in fact he is paying Rs. 30.00 cents of agricultural lands at Bollavaram village and having 1/3rd share in it and having fixed deposits to a tune Rs. 14 lakhs. He further stated for the husband that the wife can maintain herself without there being any financial support from her husband and in fact he is paying Rs. 6,000/- towards maintenance that has been awarded by this Court from the date of passing the interim order in Crl.R.C.M.P. No. 5192 of 2016 pending Crl.R.C. No. 3322 of 2016. 12. In the impugned order of the Courts below in DVC No. 52 of 2016 and Crl.A. No. 211 of 2017, the factum of this Court granting interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- in Crl.R.C.M.P. No. 5192 of 2016 is found recorded. Thus, it is not a fact suppressed by the wife. However, taking into consideration that the husband has to take care of his sick mother for whom he has been spending some amount for treatment out of his salary and has to maintain her and also he has to sustain himself and in view of the fact that he wife is already granted with maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month and it is not complained that the husband is not paying the same or is not regular in payment, this Court deems it fit and proper to reduce the interim maintenance granted under the impugned order. 13. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if an amount of Rs. 2,000/- is to be paid in favour of the respondent herein by the petitioner instead of Rs. 4,000/-. 14. Accordingly this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.