1
Dr.GRR, J
CRLRC_337_2020
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.337 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-wife aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2019 in Criminal Revision Petition No.15 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, reducing the maintenance awarded to her from Rs.5,000 to Rs.2,000/- per month modifying the order dated 29.12.2017 made in M.C.No.52 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that she filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to her and Rs.5,000/- per month to her son. She was the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage took place on 09.05.1999 as per the Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, the petitioner No.2 was born. After their marriage, they lived happily for a period of nine (09) years. Subsequently the respondent was addicted to all vices and started harassing them physically and mentally. He demanded additional dowry. He used to consume alcohol, come home late in the night, harass and bet her indiscriminately before neighbours. He 2 Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020 also suspected her fidelity. The respondent developed illicit contact with one Padma and used to reside with her and not bothered about the necessities of the petitioners. The respondent also took away his son i.e., the petitioner No.2 without intimating the petitioner No.1 and did not turn up. Thereby, the petitioner No.1 lodged a report before PS Yellandu. Police registered a case in Crime No.176 of 2011 for "man missing". She also made a representation before SC and ST Commission on 31.10.2011. After three months, Police handed over petitioner No.2 from the possession of the respondent. At that time, the respondent blackmailed the petitioner No.1 to give consent for divorce. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 filed a divorce petition before the Agency Court at Kothagudem. The respondent obtained divorce vide judgment in O.S.No.2 of 2012 dated 08.06.2012. As the respondent neglected the petitioners, to maintain them, a panchayat was held.
3. The petitioner further stated that the respondent was a government teacher and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. Apart from that, he was doing realestate business in and around Khammam Rural Mandal and Khammam Town and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Thus, in all he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. She claimed maintenance from the respondent. 3
Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020
4. The respondent filed counter. He admitted the relationship between him and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, but denied the other averments. He contended that the Petitioner No.1 was in the habit of filing various cases including the case for maintenance filed by her earlier before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu vide M.C.No.23 of 2012 and suppressing the said fact, she filed the present case. As such, the same was not maintainable. He further contended that during the pendency of the case in O.S.No.2 of 2012 before the Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, the matter was settled between them and he as full and final settlement, paid Rs.4,10,000/- to the petitioner No.1. While settling the matter, the petitioner No.1 agreed to withdraw all the cases including the M.C. filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu and that he would give his consent for divorce filed by the petitioner No.1. The petitioner after receiving full and final settlement, filed the petition only to blackmail him and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and her mother as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and also examined RWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.3 on his behalf. The trial court on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed 4 Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020 the petition granting monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner No.2 from the date of the order.
6. Aggrieved by the said order in M.C.No.52 of 2012 dated 29.12.2017 by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, the respondent preferred Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2019. The said petition was heard by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam and vide order dated 11.10.2019, the learned Principal Sessions Judge partly allowed the revision reducing the maintenance awarded to the petitioner No.1 from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,000/- while confirming the maintenance granted to the petitioner No.2 and directed that the reduction of the amount would come into effect from the date of the order on 11.10.2019.
7. Aggrieved by such reduction of maintenance, the petitioner No.1 preferred this revision contending that the lower revisional court ought to have seen that the respondent No.1 was working as a government teacher and was drawing Rs.53,448/- per month as per the salary slip for the month of October, 2019. As such, the learned Principal Sessions Judge ought not to have reduced the maintenance to the petitioner No.1. The lower revisional court ought to have seen that as the terms of settlement failed, the respondent No.1 had not paid money to the petitioner and there was no evidence that the respondent No.1 paid any lumpsum amount to the petitioner towards maintenance, as such ought not to have 5 Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020 reduced the maintenance to the petitioner No.1 and prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the order dated 11.10.2019 in Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though, notice was served on the respondent, he failed to appear before the Court or failed to engage any counsel on his behalf. Hence, this Court proceeded to pass orders on merits.
9. Perused the record.
10. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam considered the contention of the respondent that there was a settlement between the parties and that he paid Rs.4,10,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards permanent alimony and Ex.R.3 was the agreement dated 23.01.2012, signed by PW.1, but she disclaimed receipt of any amount under it and RWs.1 to 3 stated that as per the terms of the settlement, Rs.4,10,000/- were kept with one Subramanyam but PW.2, the mother of PW.1 admitted in her cross-examination that PW.1 received the said amount, held that the respondent established that he paid Rs.4,10,000/- towards permanent alimony to the petitioner No.1. He also considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not paid any maintenance but the documents were obtained under coercion, observed that the petitioner had not challenged the settlement terms arrived between them till then and allowed such terms to attain 6 Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020 finality, as such, the contention that the terms were obtained under coercion had no merits. He also further observed that if the circumstances required the permanent alimony paid was no bar for grant of additional maintenance by taking into consideration the amount which was paid, when the petitioner demonstrated the need for additional maintenance.
11. This Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the observation of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam on the said aspect.
12. However, considering that the respondent was a Government Teacher and as per the salary slip filed by the petitioners, belonging to the respondent issued by the Head Master, School Complex, Government High School (JBS), Yellandu, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, dated 28.08.2021, the respondent was drawing a gross total of Rs.76,904/- and taking into consideration the requirement of the petitioners and the amount settled towards permanent alimony was only Rs.4,10,000/-, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam ought not to have reduced the amount of maintenance granted to the petitioner No.1.
13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order dated 11.10.2019 made in Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, confirming the orders of maintenance awarded to the 7 Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020 petitioner @ Rs.5,000/- per month by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam in M.C.No.52 of 2012 dated 29.12.2017 but the same was directed to be paid from the date of petition but not from the date of the order, as directed by the said Court. The arrears are directed to be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J 27th December, 2022 nsk.