THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.R.C.No.1201 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This criminal revision case is directed against the docket order dated 23.08.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.1585 of 2011 in M.C.No.214 of 2011, on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein i.e., children of the petitioner claiming interim maintenance was allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- each per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the material on record.
3. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed maintenance case under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., before the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, claiming maintenance from the petitioner. It is stated by respondents 2 and 3 in the petition filed in support of the maintenance case that marriage of petitioner and their mother viz., Smt.A.Manikyamma was performed in the year 1991 and out of the wedlock, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were born to 2 them; that petitioner is a Government servant working as Assistant Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department; that the petitioner left the company of their mother in 2006 and since then he was not providing any maintenance to them; that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the students pursuing their education and they are in need of maintenance. Hence, they prayed for grant of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each per month. The petitioner has not filed counter in the said petition and was set ex parte, as he remained absent. The petitioner filed counter in the main case.
4. The learned Judge, Family Court, after considering the material on record and taking into account that the petitioner herein is drawing a salary of Rs.60,000/- per month and also the fact that the petitioner intentionally neglected and refused to maintain respondent Nos.2 and 3, awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the date of order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present revision case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has not taken into consideration the counter filed by the 3 petitioner in the maintenance case for the purpose of deciding the interim maintenance application; that there is dispute with regard to the marriage between the petitioner and the mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and without there being any proof of marriage, the court below accepted the contention of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and awarded interim maintenance and the same is illegal and liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that though the petitioner filed counter in the maintenance case denying the marriage between him and Smt.Manikyamma, but after prima facie considering that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of petitioner and Manikyamma, awarded interim maintenance and the same does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court.
7. It appears that the petitioner herein is disputing his marriage with one Smt.Manikyamma, who is mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the counter filed by him in the maintenance case, he stated that the mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3 used to work in 4 the same office where the petitioner was working and got acquaintance with her and he helped her four to five times and that there is no relationship as claimed by respondent Nso.2 and 3. The petitioner has not only disputed the marriage with Manikyamma but also disputed the birth of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Undisputedly, the mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner are Government employees and are acquainted with each other. It is stated that taking advantage of acquaintance, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed maintenance case and also a suit in O.S.No.2100 of 2011 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for partition of properties of the petitioner, which properties were succeeded through his mother.
8. So far as the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., are concerned, the persons claiming maintenance, as children born to the petitioner and Smt.Manikyamma, has to prove that their mother was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. When a counter is filed by the petitioner specifically denying the relationship of marriage with the mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the learned Judge, Family Court could not have decided the interim 5 maintenance application and instead could have decided the main petition itself in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both parties to lead appropriate evidence for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether the mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3 Smt.Manikyamma is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and they are their children. The issue as regards legality of the marriage which has bearing on the award of maintenance may also have to be decided by the learned Judge, Family Court before awarding maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3.
9. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned Judge, Family Court has not taken into consideration the denial of petitioner regarding his marriage with Smt.Manikyamma and also about the birth of respondent Nos.2 and 3 to them and without considering the said aspect, awarded interim maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from patent illegality warranting interference by this court and it is liable to be set aside.
10. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned docket order dated 23.08.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.1585 of 6 2011 in M.C.No.214 of 2011, on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside. The learned Judge, Family Court is directed to dispose of M.C.No.214 of 2011 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 07.09.2022 Lrkm