Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jeldi Priyadarsini, vs Jeldi Ramesh, on 27 January, 2023
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1918 OF 2008
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners under
Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for
short), who are the petitioners in M.C.No.16 of 2008, filed under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C., on the file of Judge, Family Court, Guntur,
questioning the order, dated 30.10.2008, whereunder the learned
Judge, Family Court, Guntur, declined to grant maintenance to
the first petitioner, but, granted monthly maintenance of
Rs.2,000/- in favour of the second petitioner payable by the
respondent.
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will
hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for
the sake of the convenience.
3) The case of the petitioners in M.C.No.16 of 2008, filed
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., according to the averments in the
petition, in brief, is as follows:
(i) The marriage of the first petitioner and respondent was
performed on 18.06.2005. At that time, the parents of the first
petitioner gave dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent and his
parents in the presence of elders viz., Seelam Daniel, Banerjee
and the maternal uncle of the first petitioner by name Jeldi
Rajamohan. The parents also presented 3 sovereigns of bracelet
and a gold ring weighting 1 sovereign to the respondent. They
also presented household articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/- to
the respondent. They also presented gold ornaments weighing
about 20 sovereigns to the first petitioner. Thereafter, the first
petitioner joined with the respondent at their house situated at 3 rd
lane, Pattabhipuram, Guntur. Respondent is working as a
Software Engineer at Hyderabad. Parents of the respondent and
the respondent did not agree to setup the family at Hyderabad,
but kept the first petitioner at the parental house of the
respondent at Guntur. Respondent used to visit Guntur once in a
fortnight. During the stay of the first petitioner at Guntur, her in-
laws and the elder brother of the respondent used to harass and
abuse her in a filthy language by demanding additional dowry of
Rs.5,00,000/- to send the respondent to America. When the first
petitioner brought the said fact to the notice of the respondent,
he instead of controlling his parents and brother, supported them
and demanded the first petitioner to comply the said demand.
When the said demand was brought to the notice of the parents
of the first petitioner with the help of elders and well-wishers,
they pacified the issue and instead of additional dowry of
Rs.5,00,000/-, they gave a sum of Rs.75,000/- for purchasing
Computer. Elders advised the respondent to setup the family at
Hyderabad. Hence, the respondent took a house at Flat No.206,
Kiranmayi Apartments, Motinagar, Hyderabad and setup the
family in October, 2005. The first petitioner joined there. There
was no change in the attitude of the respondent. He continued to
harass the first petitioner mentally and physically by demanding
to bring additional dowry. The first petitioner became pregnant
out of wedlock. Even then, the respondent and his family
members treated the first petitioner with cruelty. They necked
out her from the matrimonial home forcing her to take shelter in
her parental house. On 18.03.2006, the first petitioner gave birth
to the second petitioner. It was informed to the respondent and
his parents. A function was arranged on 07.04.2006. Again the
respondent and his family members reiterated their demand for
additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the parents of the first
petitioner expressed their inability to pay such amount, the
respondent and his parents declared that unless additional dowry
of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid, they would not allow the petitioners to
come and join. Saying so, they left. Subsequent mediations held
proved to be futile. Having no other go, the first petitioner
presented a report on 03.08.2006 to the Arundelpet Police Station
against the respondent, his father, brother and mother, which is
subject matter in Crime No.194 of 2006 under Section 498-A r/w
34 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) The respondent is working as a Software Engineer in
B2B Technological Company, Somajiguda, Secunderabad and
drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Having sufficient
means, he neglected to provide any maintenance to the
petitioners. The petitioners are at the mercy of the parents of the
first petitioner. Though, the first petitioner is a Graduate, she is
not accustomed to do any work. The respondent has sufficient
means to maintain the petitioners. The petitioners require a
minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month each towards their
maintenance. Hence, the petition.
4) The respondent got filed a counter denying the
averments in the petition and the contention of the respondent, in
brief, is that after the marriage i.e., from 18.06.2005 to
30.06.2005 both the first petitioner and respondent lived together
with the parents of the first petitioner at Guntur. During his stay
at Guntur at the parents of the petitioner's house, she and her
parents started insisting and forcing the respondent to stay with
them and also insisting to search a job at Guntur only. The
respondent did not accept the demand of the first petitioner and
her parents to live with them. The first petitioner never agreed to
come and reside with the respondent at his parents' house
despite repeated demands and she never stepped into the house
of respondent from the date of marriage, as such, respondent and
first petitioner were residing separately with their respective
parents since 01.07.2005. On 01.07.2005 the respondent and his
parents made several representations to the first petitioner to
come and join with the society of the respondent. On 25.09.2005
he went to the first petitioner and requested her to come and join
with him. Father of the first petitioner and her brother abused
him in filthy language and beaten him mercilessly without any
reason or cause stating that the first petitioner would not come
and live with the respondent. The respondent efforts proved to
be futile. On 02.10.2005 a mediation was held before the elders
of both where the first petitioner and her father promised with the
respondent that they would not interfere and cause any
inconvenience with matrimonial life of the respondent.
5) On 01.07.2005 the respondent came to Hyderabad
and joined in service as a Software Engineer and since then he
was residing at Hyderabad. The respondent made repeated
requests to the first petitioner, as such, on 07.10.2005 she joined
with the respondent at Hyderabad. She never participated in her
conjugal duties during the stay period at Hyderabad. She again
insisted him to leave job and to come to Guntur to search for a
job. He refused to comply the said demands. Then, she started
suspecting the character of respondent. Ultimately, she left the
house of the respondent on 23.12.2005 at Hyderabad. Since
then, she is residing in her parents' house at Guntur. Though the
respondent intimated to the parents of the first petitioner about
her attitude, they did not care to look into the issue. The first
petitioner subjected him to insult on many occasions in public.
She never looked after him with love and affection.
6) The father-in-law of the respondent is a Teacher and
drawing a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as pension. His mother-
in-law is Headmistress with aided post and drawing a salary of
Rs.18,000/- per month. She is running her own school where she
is a Headmistress. Both in-laws have got immovable property also
worth of 30 to 40 lakhs at Guntur. The first petitioner owns a
house in Door No.7-2-231/150, situated at Guntur and she has
got properties in and around Guntur. So, she has got means to
maintain herself and child. The respondent joined in service as a
Software Engineer very recently in a small private company and
getting a meager salary, which is not sufficient. Hence, the
petition may be dismissed.
7) During the course of enquiry before the learned
Judge, Family Court, Guntur, the petitioners examined P.W.1,
who is the first petitioner and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3. On
behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined. Further
Exs.A.1, C.1, B.1 to B.3 also marked on behalf of respective
parties.
8) The learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, on hearing
both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary
evidence, by virtue of an order, dated 30.10.2008, which is the
impugned order, declined to grant any maintenance to the first
petitioner by giving finding that she deserted the respondent, but
ordered the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the second
petitioner every month towards maintenance. Felt aggrieved of
the same, the petitioners filed this Criminal Revision Case
challenging the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court,
Guntur in declining to grant order of maintenance to the first
petitioner and further in grating maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per
month as against the original prayer of Rs.3,000/- per month to
the second petitioner.
9) Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point
that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order,
dated 30.10.2008 in M.C.No.16 of 2008 of the learned Judge,
Family Court, Guntur, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and
impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with
such an order?
Point:-
10) P.W.1 before the trial Court is no other than the first
petitioner and her evidence in substance is that her marriage with
the respondent took place on 18.06.2005 at Guntur. She spoken
about the presentation of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, 3 sovereigns of
bracelet, one sovereign of gold ring and further presentation of
household articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/- and that she joined
with the respondent and lived at Pattabhipuram and respondent
used to work as a Software Engineer at Hyderabad and he used to
visit every Saturday. The respondent and his parents abused and
beaten her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to
send the respondent to America. The respondent also demanded
for the same. Her parents expressed their inability to do so.
Ultimately, they provided a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent.
On the advice of the elders, the respondent took her to
Hyderabad and they stayed there. Even then, he harassed her in
drunken state. He used to go by 7-00 A.M. and returned by
11-00 P.M. in drunken state. He harassed her mentally stating
that he would go for second marriage. Parents of the respondent
also came to Hyderabad and harassed her for additional dowry.
So, she filed a criminal case which is pending. The respondent is
getting a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as a Software Engineer.
This is the substance of evidence of P.W.1 in chief examination.
11) P.W.2 is father of the first petitioner and he deposed
in tune with the pleadings of the first petitioner and in support of
the evidence of P.W.1.
12) P.W.3-S. Danial Benarji deposed in substance that he
acted as an elder to the marriage of the first petitioner with the
respondent. At the time of marriage, parents of the first petitioner
gave dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent and his parents.
They also gave household articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/-
according to the list of articles given by the respondent and his
father. The marriage took place on 18.06.2005. The first
petitioner joined with respondent. When he went to the house of
respondent to see the first petitioner, he asked the first petitioner
about her wellbeing, for which she replied that respondent and his
parents are harassing for additional dowry. Later, respondent took
the first petitioner to Hyderabad. The parents of the first
petitioner presented Rs.75,000/- towards additional dowry. There
was also a written agreement executed by both of them to that
effect. Later, he came to know that the first petitioner gave birth
to the second petitioner.
13) R.W.1 is no other than the respondent and he
deposed in his chief examination and according to the counter and
also by deposing additional facts.
14) R.W.2 was examined by the respondent to support his
case that he was attacked by the relatives of the respondent.
15) Apart from this, as evident from the judgment of the
trial Court, the parties brought in evidence Exs.A.1, C.1, B.1, B.2
and B.3. Ex.A.1 is the marriage invitation card and photograph.
Ex.C.1 is the family resolution in Telugu with English translation.
Ex.B.1 is the similar document. Ex.B.2 is relieving order. Ex.B.3
is rental deed in Telugu with English translation.
16) Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners would contend that the first petitioner got
examined herself as P.W.1 and in detail she spoken about the
true facts before the trial Court and she further examined P.W.2,
the father of first petitioner and P.W.3, the mediator and their
evidence is consistent. Further the parties also brought in
evidence Exs.A.1, C.1, B.1 to B.3, but, the learned Judge, Family
Court, Guntur, declined to grant maintenance to the first
petitioner basing on surmises and conjectures. The learned Judge,
Family Court, Guntur, unnecessarily gave findings about Section
498-A of I.P.C. case and Domestic Violence Case, etc., which is
perverse. The trial Court gave adverse findings without any
basis. The trial Court discussed the irrelevant issues in a perverse
manner and made unwarranted comments. Ex.B.3 reveals that
the first petitioner was getting monthly rentals of Rs.500/- alone,
but the findings given by the trial Court as if she was receiving
Rs.5,000/- per month towards rentals is baseless. The trial Court
erroneously recorded the rentals as that of Rs.5,000/- instead of
Rs.500/- and erroneously declined to grant maintenance to the
first petitioner. The granting meager amount of Rs.2,000/- to the
second petitioner is unsustainable, as such, the learned counsel
for the petitioners would further contend that the maintenance is
liable to be awarded to the first petitioner and the maintenance
was that grated to the second petitioner is liable to be modified.
17) Sri K. Viswanatham, learned counsel, representing the
learned counsel for the first respondent Smt. Ratna Prabha, would
seek to support the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court,
Guntur, on the ground that the Judge, Family Court, Guntur,
looked into various circumstances, pleadings and the nature of
evidence available. He would contend that the basis for the
petitioners to file a maintenance case is that the respondent
neglected to maintain the petitioners as the first petitioner did not
comply the demand of additional dowry. There is no dispute
about Ex.C.1 and B.1 that was executed in the month of October,
2005 in which there was no whisper about the so-called demand
of dowry, etc. So, the foundation to file maintenance case was
very weak and the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, rightly
looked into the facts and circumstances and rightly negatived the
claim of the first petitioner and rightly granted maintenance of
Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner, as such, there are
no grounds to interfere with the said order.
18) Admittedly, a look at the pleadings in M.C.No.16 of
2008 reveals that the contention of the petitioners in substance is
that though the respondent is working as a Software Engineer at
Hyderabad, but after the marriage, he refused to setup the family
at Hyderabad and kept the first petitioner at his parental house
where she was subjected to harassment to pay additional dowry
of Rs.5,00,000/- and respondent instead of controlling his
parents, supported their demands and demanded the first
petitioner to pay the dowry and ultimately in October, 2005 setup
the family at Hyderabad and again started to demand additional
dowry and after she became pregnant, necked out her and she
joined with her parents where she gave birth to a child on
18.03.2006 and even on 07.04.2006 at the function, respondent
and his parents reiterated the demands and did not allow the
petitioners to take them to their house. This is the substance of
allegations. It is flatly denied by the respondent.
19) Now coming to Ex.C.1 it is the so-called family
resolution in Telugu with English translation and Ex.B.1 which is
the similar document. It is pertinent to refer here the contents
thereof. So, Exs.C.1 and B.1 runs to the effect that the marriage
decision between the first petitioner and the respondent was
taken on 28.05.2005 and marriage was performed on 18.06.2005
duly and after that, small differences cropped up, as such, elders
from both sides pacified the issues and resolved to see that they
would live happily and they would resolve the disputes in the
presence of elders and they would not cause any harm against
each other. So, these documents were said to be executed in the
month of October, 2005. Admittedly, the first petitioner did not
plead about the existence of these documents in her pleadings.
Ultimately, these documents are brought in evidence during the
course of trial. So, there is nothing in Exs.C.1 and B.1 stating
that the differences arose between the parties on account of a
demand of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-.
20) So, it is very clear that by October, 2005, when the
first petitioner, even according to her, joined with the respondent
at Hyderabad, there remains nothing in Exs.C.1 and B.1 that
respondent and his parents were demanding the first petitioner to
bring additional dowry. The basis for the whole dispute appears
to be according to the first petitioner was the so-called demand
by the respondent and his parents to bring additional dowry. But,
the crucial document i.e., Exs.C.1 and B.1 did not reveal anything
about this. When P.W.1 was suggested during the cross
examination that her parents did not provide any dowry, she
denied it. During the cross examination of P.W.2, the father of
P.W.1, stated that he drawn a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the
bank account one month prior to the marriage for the purpose of
dowry and shown the transaction in his income tax returns.
There is no dispute that such documents are not at all filed before
the trial Court. Ultimately, he made an admission that he has no
document to show that he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
respondent towards dowry. Curiously, the evidence of P.W.2 in
cross examination is that cash was given in reception hall in the
Church. He deposed in cross examination that 10 bundles of 500
rupee notes were handed over to the respondent and his parents
at the time of marriage. But, according to P.W.2, he withdrawn
the amount one month prior to the marriage. However, the
testimony of P.W.2 that he withdrawn the amount from the bank,
etc., is not borne out by any record. Leave apart, the answers
made by P.Ws.1 to 3 during the cross examination, but, the
crucial documents like Exs.C.1 and B.1 do not reflect anything
that the respondent received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for dowry.
It is also rather improbable to assume that when the first
petitioner was asked to reside in the parental house of the
respondent without taking the first petitioner to Hyderabad,
though the respondent was working there as a Software Engineer,
household articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/- could be presented
to the respondent. So, the material allegations made by the first
petitioner in the maintenance case were not supported with any
probable circumstances or reasonable evidence before the trial
Court. The existence of Exs.C.1 and B.1 were not at all in dispute
and they were said to be brought into existence in the month of
October, 2005. So, to this extent, Exs.C.1 and B.1 would not
support the case of the petitioners.
21) There is no dispute according to both parties that the
respondent setup the family at Hyderabad in the month of
October, 2005 and there is no dispute that the first petitioner
conceived pregnancy. During the cross examination, P.W.1
denied that on 23.12.2005 she left the house of the respondent
without informing him. Witness volunteers that when the
respondent in a drunken stage tried to kill her, on 23.12.2005 she
left the house and her parents came there and took her to
Guntur. She denied that she harassed the respondent demanding
him to secure a job at Guntur. She admitted that after the
respondent sent a divorce notice to her, she filed a case under
Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the respondent and his family
members. She received notice in the month of July, 2006 and
she filed a case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. in the month of
August, 2006.
22) It is to be noticed that there is no dispute that as on
the date of 23.12.2005, the first petitioner was carrying
pregnancy. According to her, the respondent did not take her to
Hyderabad immediately after marriage and kept her at Guntur till
the end of September, 2005 and it could only be in October, 2005
that too after getting executed certain documents such as Exs.C.1
and B.1, she was taken to Hyderabad. She had knowledge that
there was an undertaking in both documents that none of the
parties would cause harm against each other. If that be the case,
if really she was subjected to physical harassment and especially
when the respondent allegedly tried to kill her in a drunken state
on 23.12.2005, she would not have kept quiet without lodging
any report with police. So, her evidence that on 23.12.2005 she
left the house when her parents came there and took her after
the respondent made an attempt to kill her cannot stands to any
reason. She admitted that during her stay with respondent, she
never filed any criminal case against him.
23) Apart from this, certain answers spoken by P.W.1
during the cross examination goes to show that at the time of
delivery, the respondent was present. The date of delivery was
18.03.2006 after her parents allegedly took her to Guntur from
Hyderabad when the respondent made an attempt to kill her on
23.12.2005. She further admitted that even after delivery,
respondent also visited her house. So, all these go to show that
the respondent used to visit the petitioner even after she gave
birth to the second petitioner. Now, the fact remained is that it is
quite natural for a woman like P.W.1 to go to her parental house
for the purpose of delivery. Even after delivery, respondent was
visiting her. If really there was any dowry harassment as alleged
by P.Ws.1 to 3, there would not have been any occasion where
the parties were missing to make a mention about it in Exs.C.1
and B.1.
24) Apart from this, it is quietly clear that the first
petitioner chosen to lodge a report under Section 498-A of IPC
only after the respondent sent a legal notice and filing a
matrimonial O.P. In my considered view, the evidence of P.Ws.1
to 3 would not prove that the respondent neglected to maintain
the petitioners.
25) Coming to the evidence of R.W.1 apart from adverting
to the contents of counter, he deposed certain facts which are not
borne out by the counter and the learned Judge, Family Court,
Guntur, opined that there need not be anything in detail about the
case of the respondent. This Court is of the considered view that
in a case of this nature, it is for the first petitioner to establish the
fact that the respondent neglected to maintain her in spite of fact
that he has means and that the first petitioner was unable to
maintain herself. The additional facts deposed by R.W.1 in his
evidence is such that the first petitioner had no intention initially
to conceive pregnancy, etc. In my considered view, those are not
at all coming in the way of the Court to decide this Criminal
Revision Case. Irrespective of the merits on the improvements
made by the respondent in his evidence as R.W.1 which were not
borne out by the counter, but the fact remained is that the
evidence on record goes to show that the first petitioner
miserably failed to show any justifiable circumstances to reside
separately. The basis for the first petitioner to claim maintenance
is the disputes on account of the so-called demands made by the
respondent and his family members for additional dowry and the
first petitioner miserably failed to substantiate the same.
26) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the considered view that the first petitioner failed
to prove that the respondent neglected to maintain her and that
she had any justifiable reason to live separately at her parental
house by leaving the respondent at Hyderabad. In my considered
view, the case of the first petitioner cannot stands to the test of
scrutiny.
27) It is a fact that the contention of the respondent is
that the first petitioner had a house in her name and Ex.B.3 is the
rental agreement which reveals that she is getting monthly rental
of Rs.500/-. Admittedly, the said finding of the learned Judge,
Family Court, Guntur, is by overlooking the contents of Ex.B.3,
which could only mean that the rental was Rs.500/- per month.
It is to be noticed that it is not as though the learned Judge,
Family Court, Guntur, dismissed the maintenance case on the
ground that the first petitioner is having means to maintain
herself. On the other hand, the findings against the first petitioner
was also that she deserted the respondent. As pointed out one of
the essential ingredients to succeed in a petition under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. is the neglect made by the husband towards wife.
Here, the first petitioner failed to prove the neglect towards the
respondent. Hence, merely because, the finding of the learned
Judge, Family Court, Guntur, was erroneous insofar as the
quantum of rental under Ex.B.3, but it would not support the case
of the petitioners to succeed in this Criminal Revision Case.
Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, rightly appreciated the
evidence on record insofar as the first petitioner is concerned as
to the neglect attributed against the respondent.
28) Now, there is no dispute that the second petitioner as
on the date of filing of the maintenance case was aged about 5
months. The contest of the respondent did not mean that he has
taken care to look after the second petitioner well. The evidence
on record does not show that he taken in minimum care so as to
provide any maintenance to the minor child. So, a legal
obligation is cast upon the respondent to maintain the second
petitioner, who is no other than his child. There is no dispute that
respondent was in the job up to May, 2008. He filed Ex.B.2 to
show that he resigned from the job with effect from 19.05.2008.
Obviously, he did not explain as to how much amount he was
getting while he was in job up to May, 2008. There is no dispute
that the respondent was highly qualified and had considerable
experience in the Software filed. So, it cannot be assumed by any
stretch of imagination that he was sitting ideal after resigning his
job.
29) Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it can
be said that the respondent in spite of his means to maintain the
second petitioner, neglected to maintain the second petitioner. It
is to be noticed that the petitioners in their petition prayed to
award maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each to them. As
seen from the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur,
awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the second
petitioner. Having regard to the status of the respondent and his
obligation to maintain the second petitioner who was a kid and
who need constant medical aid, as she was in growing age, this
Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge, Family
Court, Guntur, ought to have granted maintenance amount of
Rs.3,000/- per month to the second petitioner instead of
Rs.2,000/- alone.
30) In the light of the above, this Court is of the
considered view that the finding arrived at by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Guntur, insofar as the first petitioner is concerned is
on reasonable basis and order impugned cannot be said to be
illegal or irregular or impropriety. However, there are grounds to
interfere with the order so as to modify the maintenance granted
to the second petitioner as that of Rs.3,000/- instead of
Rs.2,000/- per month.
31) The point is answered accordingly.
32) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in
part modifying the order of the maintenance payable by the
respondent in favour of second petitioner as that of Rs.3,000/-
instead of Rs.2,000/- per month and the rest of the order of the
learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, dated 30.10.2008 in
M.C.No.16 of 2008, in all aspects shall stands confirmed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt. 27.01.2023.
PGR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRL. REVISION CASE NO.1918 OF 2008
Date: 27.01.2023
PGR
