Gonuguntla Subba Rao, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2703 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.7621 OF 2013

ORDER:

Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Sri V.Farooq, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing

for respondent No.1-State, and Sri Korrapati Subba Rao, learned

counsel for respondent No.2-complainant, apart from perusing the

material available on record.

2. The issue in the present Criminal Petition, filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (Cr.P.C.)

arises under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The orders passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parchur, Prakasam District, in

M.C.No.10 of 2008 dated 08.02.2013, granting maintenance to

respondent No.2 @ Rs.1,500/- per month, as confirmed by the

Court of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Prakasam

District, Ongole, in Criminal Revision Petition No.14 of 2013, are

under challenge in the present Criminal Petition.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since

respondent No.2-wife is staying away from the petitioner without

any reasonable cause and justification, she is not entitled for any

maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further

contends that both the Courts below totally ignored the evidence on

record, which disentitles respondent No.2 from claiming any

maintenance.

4. On the contrary, Sri Korrapati Subba Rao, learned

counsel for respondent No.2, strenuously supporting the orders

impugned, contends that only after undertaking extensive analysis

of the entire material available on record, the learned Magistrate

granted maintenance. It is submitted further by the learned

counsel for respondent No.2 that in the absence of necessary

ingredients of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the present application filed

under the said provision of law is not maintainable.

5. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are the husband

and wife and obviously, both of them are now senior citizens. The

information available before this Court reveals that unfortunately

the difference of opinion between the petitioner and respondent

No.2 arose in view of the marriage alliance of their son.

Respondent No.2 wanted her son and daughter-in-law to stay away

from the house of the petitioner and respondent No.2, but the

petitioner opposed the same which eventually prompted the

petitioner and respondent No.2 to stay separately.

6. In order to substantiate her case, respondent No.2

herein examined herself as P.W.1 apart from examining P.Ws.2 and

3 and filed Ex.P.1. The petitioner herein apart from examining as

R.W.1 also examined R.W.2 and filed Exs.R.1 to R.3 to substantiate

his stand. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the material

available, framed the following points for consideration:-

(1) Whether the respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner?

(2) Whether the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain petitioner?

(3) Whether the petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain herself?

(4) To what relief?

7. According to sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., no

wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance of maintenance or

interim maintenance from the husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,

if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she

refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by

mutual consent.

8. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate,

in clear and vivid terms, reveals that the learned Magistrate after

taking into consideration the entire material available on record

and also taking into account the precedents, arrived at the

conclusion that respondent No.2-wife is living separately for

justifiable reason. While fixing the quantum of maintenance also,

the learned Magistrate took into account the economic status of the

parties also and though respondent No.2 sought maintenance @

Rs.3,000/-, the learned Magistrate granted reasonable amount of

Rs.1,500/- per month.

9. Coming to the order passed by the learned I Additional

Sessions Judge -- Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while

referring to a judgment of the composite High Court in the case of

M.Padmavathi v. M.Apparao and another1, recorded a finding that

the petitioner herein did not make any efforts by calling respondent

No.2 to join. The learned Sessions Judge also refused to accept the

stand of the petitioner herein that respondent No.2 deserted the

company of the petitioner.

10. A reading of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that

the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be

exercised by this Court only under three contingencies, viz., (i) to

give any effect to any order under the Code, (ii) to prevent the abuse

of process of any Court or otherwise (iii) to secure the ends of

justice. The said contingencies are conspicuously absent in the

case on hand. In the considered opinion of this Court, having

regard to the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate and the I

Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned orders and in view of

the reasons assigned in the orders impugned, this Court does not

find any valid reasons to interfere with the said well-articulated

orders.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is

dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any,

in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 23.06.2022 siva

1995(2) ALT (Crl.) 164

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7621 OF 2013

Date: 23.06.2022

siva