Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 53 (AP)

R. Sridhar v. R. Anuradha

2025-01-07

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2025
ORDER : (V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.) This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), is filed by the husband assailing the order dated 21.12.2018 of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati in F.C.O.P.No.53 of 2017. 2. Heard arguments of Ms. Priyanvita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vedula Srinivas, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. Parties to these proceedings are Hindus. The marriage of the revision petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 08.08.2008 according to Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock, they were blessed with two children and both are minors, and they are respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively. Disputes arose between the spouses and that resulted in separation, and they have been living separately. Alleging matrimonial cruelty, the wife filed a written information which was registered as F.I.R. in Crime No.8 of 2017 at Mahila Police Station, Tirupati evidenced by a copy of the F.I.R. as per Ex.A.2 and its equivalent is Ex.B.2. The married woman living with her two minor children filed F.C.O.P.No.53 of 2017 claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife and Rs.15,000/-to each of the children and thus a total claim of Rs.45,000/- per month was prayed. In addition to that, they also prayed for Rs.1,00,000/- per year for the educational expenses of the minor children. The husband filed his counter and resisted the claim. 4. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 4 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the revision petitioner/husband, he alone testified as RW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. 5. After duly considering the evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned trial Court allowed the petition in the following terms: “21. In the result, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.4,000/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3 towards maintenance from the date of petition till petitioners 2 and 3 attain age of majority and during the life time of 1st petitioner. The interim maintenance awarded and paid by the respondent shall be deducted from the amount payable to them. The interim maintenance awarded and paid by the respondent shall be deducted from the amount payable to them. The respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3 every year towards their educational expenses, on or before 1st June. The respondent is further directed to deposit the maintenance amount in the bank account of 1st petitioner on or before 10th of every succeeding month and intimate the same to 1st petitioner through S.M.S.” 6. Dissatisfied with the said order, the husband preferred this revision. 7. It is argued that the monthly salary of the revision petitioner has been Rs.19,000/-. The learned trial Court granted a total amount of Rs.13,000/- towards monthly maintenance which is unreasonable. The trial Court ought not to have granted more than Rs.3,000/- for each of the claimants towards monthly maintenance. That the trial Court having disbelieved Exs.A.4 and A.5 ought not to have granted Rs.30,000/- per annum towards educational expenses of the minor children. 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 urges that it was only after duly considering the material on record the learned trial Court granted reasonable amounts of maintenance and that the wife and minor children have no other source of income and what was ordered by the Court below being reasonable no interference is required in this revision. 9. The point that falls for consideration is: “Whether in the light of the facts and circumstances established during enquiry before the Court below the order impugned can be stated to be irregular or illegal requiring interference? POINT: 10. It is undisputed that the revision petitioner is a District Manager in N.T.R. Vaidyasala, Government Sarvajana Hospital, Anantapuram. In the Court below the claimants alleged that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-. That was refuted by the husband. He filed Ex.B.3. They are a bunch of pay slips for the months of May, June, July, August, October and December of 2017. After analyzing these documents and oral evidence at paragraph No.11 of the impugned order, the learned Family Judge observed that the gross salary of the husband was Rs.18,572/- and his take home salary was only Rs.17,000/-. It was further observed that the husband is only employed on an outsourcing basis and thus he is not a permanent employee. After analyzing these documents and oral evidence at paragraph No.11 of the impugned order, the learned Family Judge observed that the gross salary of the husband was Rs.18,572/- and his take home salary was only Rs.17,000/-. It was further observed that the husband is only employed on an outsourcing basis and thus he is not a permanent employee. In this revision, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 could not dispute the correctness of the said finding of the Court below. Thus, it is clear that the revision petitioner has been earning a take home salary of Rs.17,000/- and he is an employee on outsourcing basis. 11. A husband who has sufficient means but refuses or neglects to maintain his wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves can be directed by a Court to pay a monthly maintenance in terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the case at hand, the revision petitioner is an earning member and his two children are minors. It is clear from the record that they are unable to maintain themselves. It is also clear from the record that they have been with their mother. Therefore, the revision petitioner being father is bound to maintain his minor children. The learned trial Court granted Rs.4,000/- to each of the children. Growing children require many things for their sustenance and education. It is not the case of either of the parties that the children are not going to any school. In such circumstances, a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to each of the children cannot be called as unreasonable. Therefore, to that extent, the impugned order does not require any interference. 12. From the evidence on record the learned Court below observed that the wife of this revision petitioner has no independent source of income and she is dependent on others. That finding arrived at on facts does not call for interference here. 13. In the claim made before the Court below, the wife contended that the husband owns house bearing Door No.20-3-6/13, Siva Jyothi Nagar, Tirupati. In her cross-examination she admitted the contention of her husband that the said house was not owned by the husband, but it was owned by husband’s father. 13. In the claim made before the Court below, the wife contended that the husband owns house bearing Door No.20-3-6/13, Siva Jyothi Nagar, Tirupati. In her cross-examination she admitted the contention of her husband that the said house was not owned by the husband, but it was owned by husband’s father. The learned trial Court properly assessed this evidence and recorded a finding that a property that belonged to father of the revision petitioner cannot be considered as an asset of the revision petitioner. Therefore, whatever rental income that was allegedly reaped from the said asset does not belong to this revision petitioner. 14. In the Court below the wife contended that the husband has a cash of Rs.20,00,000/- and has been doing money lending business and earning. She did not file any evidence in that regard. It was in those circumstances the learned trial Court disbelieved that version. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would not show any facts from record to come to a different conclusion from the evidence on record. 15. The above aspects would show that the revision petitioner is dependent on his monthly salary of Rs.17,000/- and he has no other immovable properties and has no other source of income. 16. As noticed earlier, the total income of the revision petitioner is Rs.17,000/- and he was asked by the Court below to pay Rs.13,000/- towards maintenance. Thus, what remains with the revision petitioner would be only Rs.4,000/-. A person employed has to take his travel to the office and from there back to the house and has to sustain himself with whatever meager amount that remained with him. The revision petitioner being aged 39 years by the time the maintenance claim was made before the Court below certainly deserve and require a little more amount to sustain himself. His obligation to maintain his spouse and children would always be dependent on his own survival and income he possesses. In such circumstances, this Court views that Rs.5,000/- per month granted to the wife/respondent No.1 requires modification. Therefore, the monthly maintenance allowance to be paid by the revision petitioner to his wife/respondent No.1 is reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month. That leaves about Rs.6,000/- per month to the revision petitioner for his sustenance. 17. In such circumstances, this Court views that Rs.5,000/- per month granted to the wife/respondent No.1 requires modification. Therefore, the monthly maintenance allowance to be paid by the revision petitioner to his wife/respondent No.1 is reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month. That leaves about Rs.6,000/- per month to the revision petitioner for his sustenance. 17. Before the Court below the wife contended that for each of her children she was incurring Rs.30,000/- per year towards their educational expenses and filed Exs.A.4 and A.5. After a detailed analysis of this aspect, at paragraph Nos.18 and 19, the learned Family Judge recorded that the said contention was not proved and Exs.A.4 and A.5 cannot be relied upon. However, at paragraph No.20 the learned Family Judge granted Rs.30,000/-per annum to each of the children. Learned counsel for revision petitioner is correct in contending that the impugned order is contradictory in its own terms. A monthly allowance of maintenance of a claimant usually consists of food, shelter, clothing and if they are children their educational expenses. Given the limited source of income of the revision petitioner granting anything beyond what is granted towards monthly allowance is not in the interest of justice. The approach of the Court below that on one hand it disbelieved the version and on the other hand it accepted the version and granted the amount of Rs.30,000/- per annum is certainly irregular and cannot be upheld. That part of the order has to be set aside. For these reasons, the point is answered accordingly. 18. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. The order dated 21.12.2018 of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati in F.C.O.P.No.53 of 2017 is modified and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to each of his minor children/respondent Nos.2 and 3 towards maintenance. The amount of Rs.30,000/- per year to each respondent Nos.2 and 3 towards their educational expenses that was granted by the Family Court is set aside. All the overdue arrears in terms of the present order shall be paid by the revision petitioner to respondent Nos.1 to 3 within four (4) months from the date of this order. The revised amounts of maintenance shall be paid by the revision petitioner every month without fail. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.