Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kamala Prabhakara Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 February, 2024
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.814 OF 2022
1. This Criminal Revision, under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the Revision
Petitioner/Respondent, seeking to set aside the Order, dated 18.08.2022 in Crl.
M.P.No.459 of 2019 in M.C.No.219 of 2008 on the file of Judge, Family Court,
Guntur, Guntur District (for short, "the trial Court").
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in Crl. M.P.No.459 of
2019 in M.C.No.219 of 2008.
3. Brief facts about the case are that the minor Petitioners' mother, initiated the
main case against the Respondent seeking maintenance on behalf of the minors.
The trial Court, through an Order dated 04.02.2009 in M.C.No.219 of 2008, granted
Rs.2500/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1500/- per month to the 2nd
petitioner. However, the plea for maintenance for the mother of the minor
petitioners was dismissed. The Respondent, earning a monthly salary of
Rs.1,50,000/-, contends that he has no obligation to maintain them. The granted
maintenance amount is deemed insufficient, and the petitioners find it inadequate
for covering their daily expenses. Subsequently, the petitioners sought an increase in
the maintenance amount. The trial Court approved an enhancement, setting it at
Rs.25,000/- for the 1st petitioner and Rs.15,000/- per month for the 2nd petitioner
from the petition date. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Respondent initiated the
present Revision.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for Respondent No.1 and the learned counsel
for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5. The Respondent is employed as a professor at Physiology Siddhartha Medical
College, Vijayawada. P.W.1, the mother and natural guardian of the minor
petitioners, testified on their behalf. Initially, she, along with the minor children, filed
M.C.No.219 of 2008 seeking maintenance. The trial Court granted maintenance to
the minor children i.e., Rs.2500/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1500/- to the 2nd
petitioner, on 04.02.2009, while dismissing the claim on behalf of the wife/P.W.1.
6. The petitioners in M.C., have asserted that the minor petitioners are pursuing
education, a fact not disputed. The evidence on record reveals that the 1st petitioner
was studying Junior Intermediate, and the 2nd petitioner was in the 9th class at
Narayana School. Both parties filed affidavits per the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha and another.1. The trial Court, considering
the Respondent's role as a college professor with a gross salary of Rs.1,80,000/- per
month and factoring in the present cost of living and the needs of the petitioners,
deemed the maintenance awarded by the Family Court on 04.02.2009 insufficient.
Consequently, it increased the maintenance to Rs.25,000/- per month for the 1st
petitioner and Rs.15,000/- per month for the 2nd petitioner.
7. The Respondent's main grievance is that he has been covering school fees for
Narayana Techno School, purchasing books, and paying regular medical bills.
However, the Respondent has not presented evidence to support this claim before
(2021) 2 SCC 324
the trial Court. The impugned Order notes the absence of documentary evidence
from both parties and the reliance on the oral evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1.
Consequently, without proof of payment for school fees and books, the
Respondent's contention cannot be accepted.
8. The Respondent has raised another contention, asserting that his elderly
parents depend on him, and he is repaying a home loan to LIC Housing Finance
Limited, Arundalpet, Guntur. However, the Respondent has not presented
substantial evidence demonstrating his expenditures for his parents. The claim about
payments toward the Housing Loan lacks support from any documentary evidence.
Without such evidence, the Respondent cannot contest the Family Court's Order by
introducing these claims. Additionally, the Respondent contends that any arrears of
the maintenance amount should be calculated from the Order's date rather than the
petition date, if applicable.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife placed reliance on a decision reported
in Rajnesh case (cited one supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as
follows:
"109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High
Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even
though judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant
maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the
Order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant
maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section
125 CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating to
maintenance, we find that there is a significant delay in the disposal of
the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would,
therefore, be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is
awarded from the date of the application.
111. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds
its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to
enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on
separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse
hamper their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In
order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is
necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the
application for maintenance is filed before the Court concerned.
113. It has, therefore, become necessary to issue directions to bring about
uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts by directing
that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was
made before the Court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must
date back to the date of filing the application since the period during
which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the
control of the applicant."
10. By Based on the mentioned observations, this Court deems the Respondent's
argument on this matter untenable. The evidence on record suggests that the
Respondent was receiving a net salary of Rs.1,06,646/- and a gross salary of
Rs.1,80,000/-. Awarding Rs.25,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.15,000/- to the
2nd petitioner cannot be considered unreasonable by any stretch of imagination. It
is noteworthy that the maintenance claim made by P.W.1 has been dismissed.
11. Upon thorough consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court
has appropriately assessed the evidence on record, and there is no justification for
this Court to reach a different conclusion than the one reached by the trial Court. In
the given circumstances, this Court finds that the trial Court is justified in enhancing
the maintenance amount based on factors such as the cost of living, the needs of
the petitioners, and the income of the Respondent, as previously noted.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal
Revision Case shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 15.02.2024
MS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.814 of 2022
Date: 15.02.2024
MS
