Telangana High Court
Yalagandula Srinivas, Karimnagar., vs Y.Sujana , Padma, Karimnagar. Rep Pp And ... on 25 June, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.166 OF 2014
O R D E R:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.11.2013 in Criminal Revision Petition No.47 of 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), at Karimnagar (for short, "the appellate Court").
2. No representation either side.
3. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 05.09.2023 and 04.06.2023. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and they were blessed with respondent No.2 during their wedlock. It is stated that at the time 1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 2 of marriage, the parents of respondent No.1 presented an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- cash and other house hold articles. Later, the petitioner was selected as Government Teacher. Respondent No.1 stated that after the petitioner was selected as Teacher, he started harassing her mentally and physically for want of additional dowry. When she failed to bring dowry, the petitioner drove her away from the house and neglected to maintain her and her child. As respondent No.1 possessed no means of living she filed maintenance case seeking maintenance from the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Vemulawada (for short, "the trial Court") vide order dated 02.03.2012 in M.C.No.02 of 2012 granted an amount of Rs.2,000/- and 1,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, from the date of the order.
5. It is further stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred a Revision before the appellate Court seeking enhancement of maintenance amount. The appellate Court vide impugned order enhanced the maintenance to Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month from Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, and directed the petitioner herein to pay the said amount on or before 3 10th of each month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.
6. As per the grounds raised in the Revision, the petitioner contended that respondent No.1 was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month by doing beedi rolling and tailoring work and she possessed sufficient money for her living. The petitioner is under an obligation to maintain his old aged parents, sister, brother and three children of his deceased sister. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that the quantum of maintenance granted to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is huge, excessive and he, seeks to set aside the impugned order.
7. On behalf of the unofficial respondent Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court examined respondent No.1 as PW1 and marked Ex P1. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the petitioner was a school Teacher and his salary was about Rs.24,000/- per month. Though the petitioner stated that he is under an obligation to maintain his parents, brother, sister etc., but the learned Judge of the trial Court had opined that an additional responsibility cannot relieve him from maintaining his own wife 4 and children and thus, rendered the order dated 02.03.2012 in M.C.No.02 of 2012.
8. Since, the monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs.22,987/-, the appellate Court relying upon the decision passed in K.Raghavulu Vs. K. Devathamma 2, observed that maintenance upto 1/5th of the income of the spouse can be granted to the wife and found it just and reasonable to enhance the maintenance amount payable to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively vide impugned order.
9. This Court vide order dated 04.02.2014 granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order pending disposal of the Revision on condition that the petitioner shall pay interim maintenance at half of the amount awarded by the appellate Court payable on or before 15th of every month commencing from 15th February, 2014 and arrears calculated at the same rate within four weeks from that day. Till date nothing is available on record to show that the order passed by this Court is being complied with.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellate Court rightly passed the 2 1975 (2) APLJ Page 17 5 impugned order upon taking into consideration the income of the petitioner and the living standards of the people in the present day society. Challenging such a meager amount is not permissible at this stage as the costs of living standards of the people have escalated to a larger extent. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court and the Revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 25.06.2024 ESP