Velpula Ratna Raju vs Velpula Prem Chand
2022 Latest Caselaw 9514 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.9854 of 2022

ORDER:

The petitioner is the respondent in FCOP No.651

of 2016.

2. In this case, the marriage of the petitioner with

his wife ended by virtue of a decree of dissolution of marriage

granted on 08.08.2007. The petitioner and the wife of the

petitioner had two children namely the 1st respondent born

on 04.07.2000 and the 2nd respondent born on 05.11.2004.

After the divorce had been granted, the mother of the

respondents, representing the respondents filed M.C.No.25 of

2007 on the file of First Additional District Magistrate,

Narasaraopet for grant of maintenance. This case was

compromised and the mother of the respondents agreed to

accept an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- as maintenance for the

respondents and their mother. The same was reduced to

writing and a deed was executed and registered with the sub-

registrar, Narsaraopet on 07.09.2009.

3. Subsequently, the respondents represented by

their mother again filed FCOP (MC) No.651 of 2016 before the

Additional District Judge cum Family Court, Guntur for

maintenance of the respondents. In this petition it was

alleged that though there was a settlement made earlier, the

mother of the respondents was unable to maintain the

respondents and as such sought maintenance from the

petitioner who is the father of the respondents.

4. In the course of the trial, the mother of the

respondents had been examined as P.W.1. It is stated that in

the cross examination, P.W.1 had admitted that the

respondents had become majors. On that basis, the petitioner

herein moved Crl.M.P.No.267 of 2022 under Section 258 of

Cr.P.C to stop all further proceedings in the FCOP No.651 of

2016. The petition was moved on the ground that the

respondents, having become majors would not be entitled to

any further maintenance and that the evidence given by the

mother cannot be taken into account as the respondents

themselves have become majors. This application was

dismissed by the trial court on 19.10.2022 holding that the

provisions of Section 258 of Cr.P.C would not be attracted to

the facts of this case. The trial court also relied upon a

Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court where a similar

petition was rejected.

5. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has

approached this Court by way of present petition.

6. Sri Phani Teja Cheruvu, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner would submit that the provisions

of Section 125 of Cr.P.C had been considered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.6954 of 2007 dated

04.08.2009 to contend that maintenance, under Section 125

of Cr.P.C., could not be claimed by children who are majors.

He would submit that in view of the aforesaid judgments the

question of the respondents continuing the case would not

arise and the application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C should

have been allowed by the trial court. He would further submit

that the respondents having not chosen to come into the box

and only the mother of the respondents giving evidence would

not be in accordance with the requirements of law and as

such the application to stop further proceedings should have

been allowed by the trial court.

7. In the present case, the 1st respondent is said to

have become a major only on 04.07.2018 and the 2nd

respondent would become a major only on 05.11.2022. The

FCOP for maintenance was filed in the year 2016. In the

circumstances, the maintenance for the period from the date

of filing of the petition till the date of respondents attaining

majority would have to be decided by the trial court. In the

circumstances, the contention raised by the petitioner

regarding the maintainability of a petition after the

respondents have attained majority would not be applicable

to the facts of the present case as the question of

maintenance up to the date of attaining majority would have

to be considered by the trial court.

8. The contention of the petitioner is that, the

mother of the respondents, in the maintenance case cannot

give evidence cannot be accepted. The evidence of a witness

depends upon the knowledge of the said witness and not the

status of the witness or the relationship of the witness with

the complainants or the other parties to the case.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit

that Section 258 of Cr.P.C would apply to cases which had

been initiated otherwise than by way of complaint. He would

submit that since present case is a case initiated on a

complaint, the provisions under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. would

not be applicable.

10. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in

the petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

09.12.2022 RKS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9854 of 2022

09.12.2022

RKS