THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.R.C.No.676 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.121 of 2015, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed, confirming the order dated 10.07.2015 in D.V.C.No.2 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, wherein the learned Magistrate allowed the DVC in part by directing the petitioner-husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to both the second respondent-wife and her daughter from the date of petition, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner-husband.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and learned counsel for the second respondent-wife. Perused the material on record.
3. The second respondent herein is wife of the petitioner herein. She filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2013 before the trial court against the petitioner herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women 2 from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to her and Rs.10,000/- for her daughter from the petitioner and also for damages at Rs.20 lakhs. She stated in the petition filed before the trial court that her marriage with the petitioner was performed on 21.03.2011 and later some disputes arose between them and she was necked out of the house and had been staying with her parents. She further stated that she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter and sought maintenance and compensation. The petitioner opposed the petition by filing counter inter alia stating that the amount awarded by the learned Magistrate towards maintenance is exorbitant. The second respondent-wife was examined as P.W.1 and the petitioner-husband was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of both the parties. After due enquiry, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month each to the second respondent- wife and her daughter from the date of petition. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.121 of 2015. The learned Sessions Judge, on re-appreciation of the evidence on 3 record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. The question that arises for considerations is whether the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court confirming the order passed by the trial court suffers from any illegality or infirmity and needs interference?
5. On a perusal of the judgments of the courts below, it appears that the petitioner has not disputed the relationship with his wife and also admitted that they lived together happily for about 13 months. Later, owing to some disputes between them, the second respondent was necked out of the house and she started living in her parents' house where she gave birth to a female child. She alleged that the petitioner has not taken her back as she did not give birth to a male child. Though the petitioner denied the same, admittedly he has not provided any maintenance to the second respondent and her daughter. She also filed a case against her husband and others against demand of additional dowry and the same was registered by police, Wanaparthy for the offences 4 punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. The petitioner filed the present revision challenging the judgment of the appellate court mainly on the ground that the trial court as well as the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence. The petitioner, as R.W.1, has not produced any oral or documentary evidence about the income of his wife to show that she is able to maintain herself and her daughter.
7. There is no dispute about the relationship between the petitioner and second respondent as husband and wife and also the birth of a female child out of the said wedlock. Admittedly, the petitioner is not providing any maintenance to the second respondent and her daughter. A perusal of the judgment passed by the appellate court, on re-appraisal of the evidence on record, shows that the learned Judge has rightly observed that the petitioner had admitted that he worked as a Lecturer in a private college earning Rs.7,000/- per month.
8. The trial court as well as the appellate court have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner herein is having 5 sufficient means and that he neglected and refused to maintain the second respondent and, accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month each to the second respondent and her daughter, which is not on the higher side.
9. In the circumstances and taking into consideration that petitioner herein is working as a Lecturer in a private college and keeping the present day cost of living and status of the second respondent as wife of Lecturer, and also taking into consideration the basic needs and requirements of the second respondent, the awarding of Rs.3,000/- per month each towards maintenance is quite reasonable and it is, therefore, considered that the impugned order does not call for any interference.
10. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 23.08.2022 Lrkm