THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.R.C.No.613 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 03.12.2015 in M.P.No.59 of 2013 in M.C.No.338 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by the 1st respondent-wife was allowed, directing the petitioner-husband to pay maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from January, 2015 and also one time legal expenses of Rs.30,000/- to the wife.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and learned counsel for the 1st respondent-wife. Perused the material on record.
3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the 1st respondent-wife that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner herein and their marriage was held on 09.03.2009 as per Christian rites and customs and after marriage, they lived happily for some time and later disputes arose between them and they are living separately. The petitioner herein filed O.P.No.833 of 2012 against the 1st respondent- wife for dissolution of marriage while the 1st respondent-wife filed O.P.No.1538 of 2012 for 2 restitution of conjugal rights. She filed also M.C.No.338 of 2012 seeking maintenance. During the pendency of the maintenance case, the 1st respondent-wife filed a petition in M.P.No.59 of 2013 under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C seeking a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.30,000/- per month towards legal expenses.
4. It is further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner-husband is working as Project Manager in IBM Corporation, drawing a salary of Rs.2 lakhs per month and that he owns a flat worth Rs.30 lakhs. The petitioner-husband filed counter inter alia denying the averments made in the affidavit and stating that the 1st respondent-wife is earning a salary of more than Rs.15,000/- per month by working in CD EQUI SEARCH, Begumpet and that she owns movable and immovable properties.
5. The learned Judge, Family Court after taking into consideration the submissions of both sides allowed the petition and awarded maintenance as stated above. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, the present revision is filed by the petitioner-husband. 3
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has not taken into consideration that the 1st respondent-wife is working and drawing a salary of more than Rs.15,000/- per month, besides owning movable and immovable properties; that the petitioner is drawing a salary of only Rs.1 lakh and the award of maintenance at Rs.30,000/- per month is exorbitant and prayed to set aside the impugned order; and that the 1st respondent herself deserted the petitioner from the matrimonial home and she is not entitled to maintenance.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-wife submits that the 1st respondent has no source of income and she does not have any movable and immovable properties, as alleged, and the court below, after taking into consideration the said circumstances, has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. Learned counsel prays to dismiss the revision.
8. The undisputed facts are that the marriage of the petitioner and first respondent was held on 09.03.2009 and they lived happily for some time and later disputes arose between them and are living separately. The petitioner herein filed O.P.No.833 of 4 2012 against the 1st respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage, while the 1st respondent-wife filed O.P.No.1538 of 2012 for restitution of conjugal rights. The 1st respondent-wife filed M.C.No.338 of 2012 seeking maintenance. During the pendency of the maintenance case, the 1st respondent-wife filed a petition in M.P.No.59 of 2013 under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C seeking a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.30,000/- per month towards legal expenses.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that the 1st respondent-wife herself deserted the husband from the matrimonial home and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The said aspect cannot be decided in the application filed by the wife claiming maintenance and it can be decided only after adducing evidence by both the parties. In the lengthy counter affidavit filed by the petitioner-husband, it is averred that on 11.03.2010, the 1st respondent-wife went away and she failed to join his company and later there is no communication between them. Since the wife was not responding, there was no option left to him except to file a petition for dissolution of marriage. 5 On the contrary, the contention of the wife is that she never left the house of her in-laws. She averred that in the month of November, 2010, her husband purposefully quarreled with her and necked her out from the house. Therefore, the allegations and counter allegations about the desertion can only be decided after adducing evidence by both parties at the time of final disposal of the maintenance case.
10. In the revision petition, it is stated by the petitioner that he is getting Rs.90,000/-, out of Rs.1 lakh, salary, as 10% salary is deducted towards TDS. Out of the said Rs.90,000/-, he spends Rs.22,000/- towards lodging and boarding, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.39,350/- is deducted towards EMI for Citi Bank and Rs.13,554/- EMI for Bajaj Finance. It is further stated that he sold away the flat at Sainakpuri on 10.05.2012 for Rs.11 lakhs and cleared the bank loan. Therefore, he is unable to pay maintenance, as ordered by the court below. It appears that the revision petitioner has not placed proper evidence in the miscellaneous petition as to the income and the salary he is earning. The court below has also observed that the petitioner left 6 the job from IBM and presently he is working in Pune, drawing a salary of Rs.1 lakh per month. Therefore, there is no dispute about the income of the husband drawing Rs.1 lakh per month. Though it is contended by the petitioner that the 1st respondent-wife is working in CD EQUI SEARCH, Begumpet, drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not placed any evidence to substantiate the said contention. The court below has taken care of the contentions raised by the petitioner herein before awarding maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the 1st respondent.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in SAVITRI v. GOVIND SINGH RAWAT1 held that interim maintenance, pending disposal of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, can awarded. Though there was no provision in the Code for grant of interim maintenance allowance to the wife, but it was held that the court has power to grant such interim maintenance allowance in case the court is satisfied that there are reasons to do so.
12. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 1 AIR 1986 SC 984 7 The interim maintenance is subject to final adjudication of the main petition and the contentions raised by the petitioner can also be revised and the interim maintenance granted herein is only a provisional maintenance, subject to final determination and is subject to other conditions like income etc. Therefore, the the impugned order does suffer from any infirmity warranting any interference by this court.
13. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 24.08.2022 Lrkm