Banala Atchutha Sridhar Chinni, vs Banala Victoria Rani And 2 Others,
2023 Latest Caselaw 935 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2109 OF 2009


ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who is

respondent in M.C.No.216 of 2008, on the file of learned Judge,

Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, challenging

the judgment, dated 10.11.2009 in the said maintenance case

where under the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional

District Judge, Guntur, allowed the said maintenance case by

directing the respondent, who is the Revision Petitioner herein, to

pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- to the first petitioner and

Rs.900/- to the second petitioner in the maintenance case from

the date of filing of M.C. i.e., 10.09.2008.

2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will

hereinafter be described before the Court below for the sake of

convenience.

3) The case of the petitioners in M.C.No.216 of 2008, on

the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge,

Guntur, in brief, according to the averments of the petitioners are

as follows:

(i) The respondent is the husband of the first petitioner and

the father of the second petitioner. On 19.08.2004 the marriage of

the first petitioner with the respondent took place at St. West

Parish Church, Guntur, as per Christian customs and usages. By

then, the respondent was working as Tutor in Computer Training

Centre called as TRS Institute, Lakshmipuram, 7th Line, Guntur.

The parents of the first petitioner presented cash of Rs.3,00,000/-

and further customary presentations and household articles worth

of Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage.

(ii) The marriage is consummated and the first petitioner

joined with the respondent at Prakash Nagar, where they lived for

some time. Subsequently, they shifted to a rented house in

Seetharam Nagar, 3rd line and resided there together. During the

wedlock, they are blessed with a son, David Rohit, on 29.11.2005.

Afterwards, respondent developed aversion towards the first

petitioner and harassed her physically and mentally without any

reasonable cause. He beat the first petitioner in the presence of his

mother and other family members. The family members and the

respondent used to support his attitude towards the first

petitioner.

(iii) The respondent also set up a new demand for money

to start computer business at Guntur. The first petitioner learnt

that the respondent is addicted to bad vices and he used to sell

away household articles given to him at the time of marriage. On

account of the harassment made by the respondent, the first

petitioner's father gave Rs.25,000/- to start the business but

respondent did not change his behavior. In January, 2006 on one

day, he beat the first petitioner indiscriminately and necked out

her from the house in the midnight. Hence, she went to her

parents' house. Later, they tried for conciliation, but, in vain.

Respondent developed illegal intimacy with one K. Kamala Kumari

and the first petitioner questioned the respondent about his illegal

contact. He simply admitted his illegal relation in the presence of

elders but did not change his attitude. In spite of several

mediations, respondent did not agree to take back the petitioners.

(iv) The respondent completed B.E. Degree and he is

working as a Tutor in TRS Computer Training Centre. He is

drawing salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. He has two portions of

RCC permanent building worth of Rs.9,00,000/- and he is drawing

rentals of Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioners are

entitled to receive towards monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per

month each and the respondent is liable to pay the same.

4) The respondent before the Court below got filed a

counter denying the case of the petitioners and his contention, in

brief, is that he is not a Christian and he is Vaddera by caste of

Hindu Community. Without giving Baptism to the respondent, his

marriage was performed with the first petitioner. No cash and

other presentations were given to him at the time of marriage as

alleged. On the date of marriage the first petitioner spent few

hours at the parents' house of the respondent and later she did not

step into her in-laws house. Both the first petitioner and the

respondent lived together happily as wife and husband for shorter

period of 7 or 8 months that too at the house of first petitioner.

Thereafter, they shifted to a rented house at Prakash Nagar.

During the short stay, the first petitioner became pregnant and on

the pretext of confinement, she left from the company of the

respondent and went to her parents' house. She gave birth to the

second petitioner. Thereafter, she did not return back and she did

not care the welfare of the respondent. So, the respondent

suffered a lot mentally and physically and became psychiatric

patient. The first petitioner disliked the respondent from the very

beginning. He never neglected or refused to maintain the

petitioners. The attributions made against him by the first

respondent that he has illicit intimacy with K. Kamala Kumari are

all false. He is not getting income as alleged by the first petitioner.

Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5) Before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional

District Judge, Guntur, on behalf of the petitioners P.W.1 to P.W.3

were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. Respondent

examined himself as R.W.1 and further examined R.W.2.

6) In fact, the present petitioner also filed D.O.P. No.334 of

2008 before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional

District Judge, Guntur, with the selfsame averments in which the

respondent therein contested the same. Learned Judge, Family

Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, by virtue of a

common order, dated 10.11.2009, allowed the maintenance case

and further allowed D.O.P. No.334 of 2008 dissolving the marriage

between the petitioner in D.O.P.No.334 of 2008 and respondent

therein. It is altogether a different aspect that though the order in

M.C.No.216 of 2008 and D.O.P.No.334 of 2008 is common, but,

the petitioner challenged the order in M.C.No.216 of 2008 by way

of Criminal Revision Case as provided under law. This Court is not

concerned with the appeal, if any, before the Division Bench

against the order in D.O.P.No.334 of 2008.

7) In the light of the above, the simple question which

falls for consideration is as to whether the judgment, dated

10.11.2009 in so far as M.C.No.216 of 2008, on the file of Judge,

Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur is concerned,

whether it suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety

and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said

judgment?

POINT:-

8) The learned counsel, Sri P.V. Vivek, representing the

learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the

impugned judgment is not valid under law. Though the petitioner

had no means to pay maintenance, but, the learned Judge directed

him to pay maintenance, which is beyond his capacity. The

petitioner was un-employee and has no source of income and he is

also taking treatment, as such, he had no means to pay any

maintenance. P.W.1 before the Court below did not prove the

income of the present petitioner. Though the first respondent was

educated and capable of earning, but, the learned Judge ordered

the revision petitioner to pay maintenance which is erroneous. He

would contend that the order of the learned Judge, Family Court-

cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, is not valid under law and

facts, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.

9) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing

the Public Prosecutor i.e., third respondent, represented that the

third respondent is only a formal party and the matter may be

disposed on merits.

10) No arguments were advanced on behalf of Respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

11) P.W.1 before the Court below is no other than the first

petitioner in the maintenance case and the first respondent herein.

P.W.2 is neighbor, who conducted mediations to resolve the

disputes between the first petitioner and the respondent. P.W.3 is

the father of the first petitioner. R.W.1 is the respondent. He

examined R.W.2 in support of his case.

12) P.W.1 in her chief examination affidavit put forth the

facts in tune with her case. The chief examination affidavit of

P.W.2 is supporting the case of the first petitioner. P.W.3 is father

of the first petitioner deposed in supporting the case of the first

petitioner.

13) As the maintenance case in M.C.No.216 of 2008 filed

before the Court below was under Section 125 Cr.P.C., now this

Court has to see whether the evidence adduced by the petitioners

in the maintenance case are sufficient to say that the respondent

in the maintenance case in spite of having means to maintain the

petitioners, neglected to maintain them and that the petitioners

were unable to maintain themselves.

14) There is no dispute about the factum of marriage

between the first petitioner and the respondent in the maintenance

case. There was also no dispute that during the wedlock the

second petitioner was born to the first petitioner and the

respondent. The allegations made by the petitioners were that

from the beginning respondent developed aversion towards the

first petitioner and he used to beat her in the presence of his

parents and that he developed illicit intimacy with named woman

and that the parents of the first petitioner presented huge

amounts at the time of marriage and also later and that the

respondent necked out the first petitioner and later did not allow

her to join with him. On the other hand, the respondent before the

Court below denied the allegations raised against him.

15) As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he spoken about

the performance of marriage of her with the respondent in

accordance with the Christian customs and usages and their

staying and that they are blessed with a child and the respondent

used to demand further dowry and harassed her in several ways

and he used to beat her indiscriminately and he further developed

illegal intimacy with a named lady and he is addicted to all bad

vices, etc. P.W.1 in her chief examination affidavit put forth the

facts in tune with the averments in the petition.

16) During the course of cross examination, she denied

that except the date of marriage, she did not visit the house of the

respondent. She categorically denied the case of the respondent

in several ways. The respondent got elicited some answers from

her in cross examination that they given double cot, T.V., cooking

vessels, etc., at the time of marriage and these articles are now

with the respondent. One Bolla Hanumantha Rao and Bandari

Anjaneyulu tried for settlement, but, in vain. The respondent is

now residing in Prakash Nagar along with his kept mistress.

17) It is to be noticed that P.W.2 claimed to be a mediator

and he spoken about the factum of marriage between the first

petitioner and the respondent in accordance with Christian rites

and customs and about the presentation of cash and other articles

and that he came to know about the physical and mental

harassment to the first petitioner and then he mediated the issue,

but, in vain. P.W.2 is no other than Bolla Hanumantha Rao, whose

name was elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during cross

examination.

18) P.W.3 is the father of the first petitioner and his chief

examination affidavit is in tune with the case of the first petitioner.

19) As seen from the cross examination part of R.W.1, he

categorically admitted that after 15 days prior to the marriage, the

parents of his wife paid Rs.1,20,000/- to his brother for marriage

expenses. Later, prior to the marriage, they have given

Rs.1,18,000/- to his brother. Due to some problems, he stayed in

the house of his in-laws till he came out. He denied that since the

date of marriage, he was showing dislike towards his wife and ill-

treated her. He admitted that he stayed in the house of his in-

laws for about one or two months after the birth of his son and

later he left. Thereafter, due to health problems, he did not visit

their house. He did not provide any maintenance to his wife during

that period.

20) It is to be noticed that it is the specific case of the

respondent that after P.W.1 left to her parents' house to give birth

to a child, she did not come back. His contention in the counter

was as if he did not see the first petitioner after she gave birth to a

child, but, during the cross examination, he admitted that even he

stayed in the house of his in-laws, even after P.W.1 gave birth to a

child for several months. This proves the theory of the case of the

petitioners. He categorically admitted that after he came out from

the house of his in-laws, he did not visit the petitioners at any

point of time. Apart from this, he admitted during the cross

examination about the presentation of cash as averred by the first

petitioner in her maintenance case and her chief examination

affidavit. He got elicited negative answers in cross examination as

to the presentation of the double cot, TV and cooking vessels. All

these goes to show that the evidence on record categorically

proves the neglect attributed against the respondent. The

admissions made by R.W.1 in cross examination categorically

prove the fact that he has no definite stand. In his counter, he did

not plead the real facts as to when actually the first petitioner left

from his company. On the other hand, it is he, who resided along

with the first petitioner after she gave birth to the second

petitioner in his in-laws house. All these admissions made by

R.W.1 in cross examination are not pleaded in the counter. So, the

admissions made by him in the cross examination throws any

amount of doubt about the bonafidies in his case.

21) Apart from this, the crucial allegation against the

respondent is that the respondent developed illicit intimacy with

one Kamala Kumari and used to harass the first petitioner. It is

elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 during cross examination that

when he went for mediation, he found one Kamala Kumari in the

house. So, when the testimony of P.W.2 was tested in cross

examination, he deposed the facts which are convincing. There is

corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 from the evidence of P.W.2

as well as from the evidence of P.W.3. In my considered view, the

evidence on record categorically proves the fact that the

respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners.

22) There is no dispute that the second petitioner being a

child was unable to maintain himself. According to the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.3, the first petitioner had no source of income. The

respondent did not prove contrary. Apart from this, the admitted

income of the respondent even at the time of marriage as he was

working as a Tutor as of Rs.4,500/- per month and he deposed the

same in his cross examination. The contention of the petitioners is

that the respondent was drawing Rs.8,000/- per month. Though

the petitioners did not file any proof in this regard, but, the

moment the respondent admitted that he was working in a private

company as on the date of marriage, he was supposed to file proof

by producing his salary certificate, but, he did not file his salary

certificate. Without proper proof, he put forward a contention that

he was terminated from the job after the marriage. Even it is not

substantiated. So, the evidence on record goes to show that the

respondent was not interested before the Court below in proving

his monthly income. Even otherwise, the maintenance of

Rs.1,500/- to the first petitioner and Rs.900/- to the second

petitioner, which was granted, was not at all excessive even

considering the admitted income of the respondent.

23) Having looked into the overall facts and circumstances

and having gone through the evidence on record and the judgment

of the Court below, this Court is of the considered view that the

judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional

District Judge, Guntur, dated 10.11.2009 in M.C.No.216 of 2008,

does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and

I see no reason to interfere with the same.

24) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.16.02.2023 PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

CRLRC NO.2109 OF 2009

Date: 16.02.2023

PGR