Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 411 (AP)

N. Balaji Kumar Reddy v. P. Anuradha

2025-03-06

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2025
ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), is filed by the husband impugning the order dated 19.06.2018 of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati in F.C.O.P.No.44 of 2017. 2. Heard arguments of Sri K.Jitendra, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3-State. 3. A marriage is a union between two people that is characterized by love, respect and commitment. The case on hand is one where the man and woman fell in love first and thereafter convinced the elders and their marriage was solemnized on 27.11.2009. It was a happy wedlock, and the spouses were blessed with a girl child on 03.07.2012. Serious rift between the spouses brought the marriage into rough weather.The wife claimed that her husband was cruel towards her and filed F.C.O.P.No.69 of 2015 and the husband did not choose to contest. The marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce dated 16.07.2016. The girl child by then was aged four years and she was with her mother. It seems, in the divorce proceedings no prayer was made for maintenance. About seven months after the decree of divorce the divorced woman and her minor daughter filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the man in F.C.O.P.No.44 of 2017 before the learned Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The husband filed his counter raising various contentions. The learned Family Judge inquired into the matter where there was evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.12 and the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.B.1 to B.3. Eventually, the claim for maintenance was allowed in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is partly allowed with costs and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month to the 1 st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2 nd petitioner towards their maintenance from the date of filing of this petition. The respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per annum to the 1 st petitioner towards medical expenses and shelter and also Rs.30,000/- per annum towards educational expenses of the 2 nd petitioner. The rest of the claim is dismissed.” 4. The respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per annum to the 1 st petitioner towards medical expenses and shelter and also Rs.30,000/- per annum towards educational expenses of the 2 nd petitioner. The rest of the claim is dismissed.” 4. The aggrieved man in this revision intending to show to this Court the illegality or irrationality or impropriety in the order of maintenance granted to his divorced wife and their legitimate minor daughter. 5. In the revision the following grounds are mentioned: The claim for maintenance ought to have been dismissed. Exorbitant amounts were granted by the Family Court. Even while the divorce proceedings were pending mediation was held and the husband requested his wife to join conjugal fold, but she refused to do the same and therefore, her claim for maintenance ought to have been dismissed. Parents of the wife spoiled the matrimonial life of the spouses. The wife has been earning Rs.48,000/- per month and the Family Court erroneously granted maintenance to such a wife. As the wife has left the conjugal life, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that relative financial positions of the parties was not properly considered by the Family Court and the revision petitioner subsequent to the decree of divorce got married to another woman and through that wedded life now he has a daughter and all of them are dependents on him. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/wife and minor daughter argued that the grounds urged in the revision are totally meritless and the learned Family Judge appreciated the evidence appropriately and reached to correct conclusions and at any rate the order impugned does not suffer from any legal lapses and therefore this revision is required to be dismissed. 8. The point that falls for consideration is: “ Whether the order granting maintenance to divorced wife and minor daughter suffers from factual or legal errors requiring interference in this revision?” POINT: 9. Certified copy of decree and order in F.C.O.P.No.69 of 2015 is Ex.A.3. Divorce was granted on 16.07.2016. It became final. Respondent No.2 - Kum. N.Dhatri Sree is the legitimate daughter of the Hindu spouses. All this is not in dispute. Divorce between spouses does not severe their relationship with the daughter born to them. Certified copy of decree and order in F.C.O.P.No.69 of 2015 is Ex.A.3. Divorce was granted on 16.07.2016. It became final. Respondent No.2 - Kum. N.Dhatri Sree is the legitimate daughter of the Hindu spouses. All this is not in dispute. Divorce between spouses does not severe their relationship with the daughter born to them. Section 125 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits a minor child to claim maintenance provided she is unable to maintain itself. It has never been the case of father/revision petitioner that either he made some arrangements or there were arrangements made by others in support of the little child. Thus, it is at once clear that the child has been unable to maintain herself. Then the statute states that it has been the responsibility of the father to look after all the needs and necessities of a growing minor child. 10. Under the order impugned the minor child was granted a monthly allowance of Rs.5,000/-. When the proceedings were initiated, she was studying in UKG. Evidence on record established the educational expenses needed for the child. As the time passes by, she grows up requiring more money for her well being as well as her education. Keeping that in mind the learned Family Judge also granted an amount Rs.30,000/- per annum to meet the educational expenses of the minor daughter. On merits, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in awarding such amounts. Sri K.Jitendra, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner fairly concedes the claim of the minor child/respondent No.2 as ordered by the learned Family Judge. Therefore, this part of the impugned order does not require any interference. 11. The evidence on record has shown that this revision petitioner has been in the employment of Ranbaxy as a sales officer and has been receiving monthly salary. He contended that he was earning only Rs.40,000/- towards his salary per month. He did not file his salary certificate. The contention of the wife was that her husband was earning Rs.70,000/- per month. She did not file the salary certificate of her husband. A keen reading of the impugned order does not indicate specific findings or observation of the learned Family Judge about the monthly income of the revision petitioner. He did not file his salary certificate. The contention of the wife was that her husband was earning Rs.70,000/- per month. She did not file the salary certificate of her husband. A keen reading of the impugned order does not indicate specific findings or observation of the learned Family Judge about the monthly income of the revision petitioner. At this length of time, it is not unreasonable to think that the revision petitioner must be getting a salary around Rs.50,000/- per month. 12. The wife of revision petitioner who is respondent No.1 herein is an educated woman and by the time of marriage she was employed and during the subsistence of marriage she continued her employment and during divorce proceedings she continued her position and the decree of divorce was obtained on 16.07.2016. It was thereafter in January 2017, according to her, she resigned her job because of her neck pain. The learned Family Judge considered the rival evidence on both sides and held that the husband through Ex.B-series documents was only able to show that the woman received Rs.48,878/- from her employer for a period commencing from 01.05.2017 till 11.07.2017. From the evidence it observed that they were towards the terminal benefits of the woman and thereafter she did not work and earn. Thus, the wife of this revision petitioner has been without any gainful source of revenue. The revision petitioner did not furnish any evidence showing that she had other sources of income. It is clear thus the respondent No.1 is a divorced wife and has no source of income and therefore is unable to maintain herself. 13. Section 125 (1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates a husband to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. Explanation (b) of it reads “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that his divorced wife got remarried. The revision petitioner’s contention is that he was ready to maintain his wife provided she joined him and to that effect he also got issued notice to his wife even during pendency of divorce proceedings. Even if all that is true such facts have no bearing. A divorced woman has no duty to live with her divorced husband. The revision petitioner’s contention is that he was ready to maintain his wife provided she joined him and to that effect he also got issued notice to his wife even during pendency of divorce proceedings. Even if all that is true such facts have no bearing. A divorced woman has no duty to live with her divorced husband. As long as the divorced husband has not been able to show any disqualification on part of his divorced wife to seek maintenance, the law commands him to pay maintenance., [ Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal (2020) 19 SCC 342 ]. Therefore, the learned Family Judge is right in holding that the divorced wife is legally entitled to claim monthly maintenance. Such finding has to be approved as correct. 14. The only question is about quantification of maintenance. Since the revision petitioner is now a husband to another woman and is also a father of another child and considering his financial commitments and considering the fact that his divorced wife is without any source of living, the monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- granted by the learned Family Judge does not call for any interference. A careful and just balance must be drawn based on relevant factors. Relevant factors include income, expenditure and standard of living of the spouses. If there is a serious disability or ill-health to the wife and if the same is demonstrated through tangible evidence, a further provision for maintenance may have to be granted. In the case at hand, respondent No.1/divorced wife has not shown any such evidence before the Family Court. Her claim was only for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was not a case of seeking a remedy under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in which proceedings a Court could make a provision for house rent. Viewed in that manner the order of the learned Family Judge in granting Rs.50,000/- per year to the divorced wife towards her medical expenses and shelter does not seem strictly fall within the conspectus of Section 125 Cr.P.C. What was granted in the form of monthly maintenance was Rs.12,000/- and that should take care of all her needs. It is needless to say that in the event of changed circumstances she is always entitled to seek further reliefs to modify the monthly allowance by filing appropriate petition before the Court below. It is needless to say that in the event of changed circumstances she is always entitled to seek further reliefs to modify the monthly allowance by filing appropriate petition before the Court below. It is in the context of above facts this Court intends to set aside the order granting an amount of Rs.50,000/- per year to the divorced wife/respondent No.1 towards her medical expenses and shelter from the date of this order. 15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 19.06.2018 of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati in F.C.O.P.No.44 of 2017 granting an amount of Rs.50,000/- per year to the divorced wife/respondent No.1 towards her medical expenses and shelter is set aside from the date of this order. The remaining order of the learned Family Court is left intact. It is made clear that this order of this Court has not absolved the liability of the revision petitioner to pay all the arrears accrued so far. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.