Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 805 (AP)

C. Ravi Kiran Yadav v. State Of A. P.

2024-07-23

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : Challenging the order of interim maintenance, dated 25.01.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.6931 of 2018 in M.C.No.2 of 2018 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Prakasam, the petitioner/husband filed the present Criminal Petition. 2. Heard Sri B.Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.N.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The case of the respondent No.2 is that the marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on 07.12.2008 at Thyagaraja Reddy Kalyana Mandapam at Proddutur Town, Y.S.R.Kadapa District as per Hindu Caste and Customs. At the time of marriage, parents of the 2nd respondent gave cash of Rs.7,00,000/- towards dowry and also presented 10 thulas of gold to the petitioner. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent joined the matrimonial house and lead happily for a period of one year. Thereafter, the petitioner addicted to vices and started harassing the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry from her parents. In spite of mediations held between them, the petitioner did not change his attitude. When the 2nd respondent expressed her inability to bring additional dowry, she was ill-treated by the petitioner. Having no other go, the 2nd respondent filed a criminal complaint, which is the subject matter in Cr.No.121 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also filed the above said maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) before the Court below, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the petitioner alleging that she was neglected by the petitioner and she has no means to maintain herself. Respondent No.2 also filed Crl.M.P.No.6931 of 2018 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the petitioner. The respondent is working as an Software Engineer at Bangalore and getting salary of Rs.75,000/- per month, besides having 3 houses at Proddutur and getting rent of Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioner is also having Ac.5-00 cents of land and getting income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum through the land. 4. The petitioner/husband filed a counter and contended that the 2nd respondent voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home, as such, she is not entitled for any interim maintenance. The petitioner is also having Ac.5-00 cents of land and getting income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum through the land. 4. The petitioner/husband filed a counter and contended that the 2nd respondent voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home, as such, she is not entitled for any interim maintenance. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner suffered a lot both mentally and economically by virtue of attitude of the 2nd respondent. It is also stated in the counter that though the petitioner bear all the harassment made by respondent No.2, there is no change in her attitude. She also foisted false case against the petitioner and his family members, due to which, the petitioner lost his job. As respondent No.2 did not mend her attitude, having no other option, he filed D.O.P.No.131 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, seeking divorce. Thereafter, as a counter blast, she filed maintenance case with false allegations, as such, she is not entitled to claim maintenance, as she herself left the company of the petitioner herein. The learned trial Judge after going through the entire material on record and after lengthy arguments, granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Petition praying to set-aside the order of interim maintenance, dated 25.01.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.6931 of 2018 in M.C.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Prakasam. 5. Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether the impugned order of interim maintenance, dated 25.01.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.6931 of 2018 in M.C.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Prakasam, is liable to be set aside or not - ? 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. It is settled position that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to negate or subvert the statutory provision. It is no doubt true, that one can approach this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 against the order only under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of the rare cases. The provision of Section 482 is not a routine remedy against any order by the party. In the present case, the order of the learned Magistrate transpires, that while passing the order, the learned Magistrate exercised his judicial discretion, having taken into account the source of income of the petitioner/husband and the other materials brought on record, which were also considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate and he has judiciously exercised his discretion and granted interim maintenance, as such, this Court does not find any fault with such order. Hence, this petition in my considered view does not fall in the category of the rarest of the rare cases, requiring interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process. 8. Coming to the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the marital relationship between the petitioner and 2nd respondent is not in dispute. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is admittedly the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. 9. It is an admitted fact that they are living separately on account of the disputes cropped up between them. The petitioner did not produce any material to substantiate that the 2nd respondent is earning member and she is having sufficient means to maintain herself. On the other hand, 2nd respondent also did not produce any material to establish the income of the petitioner herein. The petitioner did not produce any material to substantiate that the 2nd respondent is earning member and she is having sufficient means to maintain herself. On the other hand, 2nd respondent also did not produce any material to establish the income of the petitioner herein. But, as per the averments in the petition, the petitioner herein is working as an Software Engineer at Bangalore and getting salary of Rs.75,000/-per month, besides having 3 houses at Proddutur and getting rentals of Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioner is also having Ac.5-00 cents of land and getting income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum through the land. More particularly, the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succor to her. Therefore, the petitioner, being a husband, is bound under law to provide maintenance to the 2nd respondent under the provisions of Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C., who is unable to maintain herself. 10. Furthermore, the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly shows that the petitioner has neglected to maintain his wife i.e., 2nd respondent, though having sufficient means. Hence, the learned Judge has rightly come to a conclusion and awarded interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that awarding maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent 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. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed and the order of interim maintenance, dated 25.01.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.6931 of 2018 in M.C.No.2 of 2018 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Prakasam, is hereby confirmed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.