Smt Pinapala Ramalakshmi vs Pinapala Ramakrishna Naidu
2022 Latest Caselaw 1339 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1339 AP
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt Pinapala Ramalakshmi vs Pinapala Ramakrishna Naidu on 16 March, 2022

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1233 and 1236 of 2016


COMMON ORDER:


      Both these Criminal Revision Cases arise out of common Judgment

passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.Nos.29 &

30 of 2015, dated 26.06.2015.


      2.     Heard    Sri   G.V.S.Kishore   Kumar,   learned   counsel   for   the

petitioners, Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for the 1st respondent as well as Sri

Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.


      3.     Facts

in nutshell :

Petitioners 1 & 2 in both the cases are the wife and minor child of the 1 st

respondent herein. The petitioners herein filed D.V.C.No.30 of 2012 on the file

of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (P&E) at Visakhapatnam

under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005

seeking maintenance and other reliefs.

(ii) Marriage of the 1st petitioner was performed with the 1st

respondent on 21-04-1999 at Simhachalam Devastam, Visakhapatnam, and it is

a love marriage. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two male children on

13-02-2000 and 04-05-2004 respectively. At the time of marriage, an amount

of Rs.2,00,000/- and other gold articles were presented by the parents of the

1st petitioner. 2nd respondent is the mother-in-law, 3rd respondent is the sister-

in-law and 4th respondent is the husband of the 3rd respondent. As the marriage

took place against the wishes of the parents of the 1 st respondent, they started

harassing the 1st petitioner. After the birth of children, 1st respondent also

started ill-treating the 1st petitioner at the instigation of respondents 2 to 4

and neglected to look after them. As the 2nd petitioner is suffering from health

ailments, he requires medical treatment. Subsequently, in view of

misunderstandings between them, both the couple started living separately.

The 1st respondent left the 2nd petitioner with the 1st petitioner and took the

other child, who is hale and healthy.

(iii) Suppressing all the facts, the 1st respondent filed O.P.No.583 of

2005 seeking divorce with all false allegations. The 1st petitioner also filed

O.P.No.640 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court at

Visakhapatnam tried both the matters together and passed a common

Judgment, dated 16.03.2011, dismissing the O.P., filed by the 1st petitioner

and allowing the O.P., filed by the 1st respondent granting divorce. Aggrieved

by the said common order, the 1st petitioner preferred appeals in F.C.A.No.93

of 2011 and F.C.A.No.160 of 2011 before this Court and they are pending.

4. On behalf of 1st petitioner, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.P1

to P8 have been marked. On behalf of respondent, R.Ws.1 & 2 were examined

and Exs.R1 to R12 have been marked.

5. After elaborate trial, the trial court partly allowed the petition

granting maintenance to the 2nd petitioner @ Rs.4,000/- per month and denying

the maintenance of the 1st petitioner, vide order, dated 17-04-2014. Aggrieved

by the same, the 1st respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2015 and

the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2015 on the file of the Court

of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. The Appellate Court

relying on the Judgment reported in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab

& Another1 and also the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Koushik v.

Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami and 2 others, allowed the appeal filed by

the 1st respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Both the

Courts below mainly rejected the claim of the 1st petitioner on the ground that

2012 Crl.J.R.(SC) 16

as on the date of filing of D.V.C., the couple is not residing together and as

such, there is no domestic violence and divorce was granted by the Family

Court on 16-03-2011 as the couple is residing separately from 2005 onwards on

account of the disputes arose between them.

6. The view taken by both the Courts below is contrary to the

following Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. They are :

1. V.D.Bhanot V.Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183

2. Saraswathy V.Babu (2014) 3 SCC 712

3. Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and

another 2014 (10) SCC, 736

4. Shailini Vs. Kishore (2015) 11 SCC 718

5. Lalita Toppo Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr (2019) 13 SCC 796

7. As seen from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Inderjit's Case (Supra), though the couple is residing separately since long

time, neglecting the wife and children without providing financial assistance

amounts to economic abuse and it can be agitated under the provisions of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005. In such circumstances,

the common Judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court in

Crl.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2015 is liable to be set aside.

8. It is an admitted fact that since 2005, they are living separately

on account of the disputes between them. Though, they are living separately

since long time, as a husband, the 1st respondent is bound under law to provide

maintenance to the petitioners 1 & 2. Moreover, it is admitted by the 1st

respondent before the trial Court stating that he is getting a sum of

Rs.15,000/- per month by running a Travel business. In addition, the oral and

documentary evidence on record clearly shows that the 1 st respondent has

neglected to maintain them, though he is having sufficient means. Hence, the

1st respondent is liable to pay maintenance to the wife as well as to the child.

9. In that view of the matter, both these criminal revision cases are

allowed setting aside the common order passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila

Court, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2015, dated 26.06.2015.