K.Sreedevi vs Kaminepalli Vidya Sagar The State ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5399 AP

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI


             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.66 OF 2007

ORDER:

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed memo vide

U.S.R.No.65056/2021 regarding proof of service on respondent

No.1, to this effect that as per the postal receipt and track

assignment report item delivery was confirmed.

2. None responds for respondent No.1

3. Heard Sri N.Harinath, learned counsel representing

Sri C.Martan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

the material on record.

4. This revision has been filed by the wife challenging the

order dated 16.12.2005, passed by the V Additional Sessions

Judge, Tirupati, whereby the amount of maintenance to the

petitioner against the husband/respondent No.1 of Rs.2,000/- as

awarded by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, has been

reduced to Rs.1,000/- per month.

5. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi by

order dated 29.11.2004, recorded findings that the

respondent/husband neglected the petitioner in maintaining her

and that she was not able to maintain herself, having no means

and was held entitled for the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month.

The revision Court affirmed the findings on above points but

interfered with the quantum of maintenance.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

amount of maintenance did not require any reduction as it was

granted after considering all the aspects of the matter and the

finding that the wife was unable to maintain herself and the

husband was a man of means, was affirmed by the revision Court.

7. I find force in the submission advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the judgment of the trial

Court shows that on due consideration, the amount of Rs.2,000/-

per month was awarded. Even if the daughters were studying and

were to be married, that would not minimize the statutory liability

of the husband to maintain the petitioner/wife with a reasonable

sum to enable her to live a dignified life. The amount awarded by

the trial Court was a reasonable amount, at that time, and in the

exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it was not open to the revisional

Court to interfere with the amount awarded and particularly when

such exercise could not be shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable

and the revisional Court also having affirmed all other findings of

the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

The order passed by the revision Court is set aside. The order

dated 29.11.2004 stands revived.

9. As the order of the trial Court was passed in the year

2004, it shall be open for the petitioner, if so advised and so

required, to apply for enhancement of the maintenance amount as

per law.

10. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, shall stand closed.

________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date.21.12.2021 KLPD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.66 OF 2007

Date:21.12.2021 KLPD