1 RRN,J
Crl. RC.No.869 of 2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.869 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2015 in M.C.No.162 of 2012 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Addl. Family Court, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that; the 1st respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner. The 1st respondent filed M.C No. 162 of 2012 seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each to herself and to her two minor children. By an order dt.31.12.2015, the Trial Court dismissed the M.C against the 1st respondent and granted Rs.8,000/- per month to respondents No.2 and 3 i.e the minor children, to be paid by the revision petitioner. Challenging the said order, the revision petitioner/husband filed the present revision.
3. Heard and perused the record. Though the matter is posted for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondents.
2 RRN,J
Crl. RC.No.869 of 2016
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the order of the Trial Court is erroneous as it failed to observe that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was performed fraudulently and further failed to observe that the 1st respondent has a sufficient source of income to take care of her children. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision petition.
5. It is evident from the record that the petitioner resisted the maintenance case before the Trial Court on the sole ground that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was not out of his own will. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence found that the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, meaning, that respondents No.2 and 3 are the legitimate children of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The Trial Court dismissed the claim against the 1st respondent/wife and awarded monthly maintenance to the minor children. The father of minor children is duty bound to maintain his children and the Trial Court taking note of the fact that he was working and earning salary, came to the conclusion that the minor children are entitled to Rs.8,000/- per month. The Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order and the ground that the 1st respondent has sufficient means and qualifications to earn 3 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.869 of 2016 and maintain her children is rejected. Therefore, this revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed and the order dated 31.12.2015 in M.C.No.162 of 2012 passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. The revision petitioner is directed to pay the arrears to respondents No.2 and 3, if any, within a period of three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J 15th day of March, 2023 BDR