Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Moppuri Venkata Naga Bhaskar Rao vs Moppuri Pravallika Yagnam Penchalamma on 14 November, 2024
::1::
APHC010019202022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No: 247/2022
Between:
Moppuri Venkata Naga Bhaskar Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
Moppuri Pravallika ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
YagnamPenchalamma and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C) has been filed, by the
Petitioner/Respondent, seeking to quash the judgment passed in Criminal
Revision Petition No.19 of 2019, dated 09.11.2021 on the file of Court of the IV
::2::
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore and in reversing the order
passed in M.C.No.31 of 2017, dated 28.01.2019, on the file of the Court of the
Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur.
2. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Smt.
Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Ms. K.
Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner
herein is the husband and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and minor
daughter of the Petitioner.
(a) Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that
Respondent Nos.,1 and 2 filed M.C.No.31/2017 U/s 125 of Cr.P.C, 1973 on
the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, seeking
maintenance. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the claim of maintenance of the
wife. Whereas granted an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month towards the
maintenance of minor child who is in the custody of the mother, vide orders
dated 28.01.2019.
(b) Learned counsel further would submit that aggrieved thereby,
Respondent No.1 herein preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.19/2019
on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore challenging the
validity and correctness of the orders passed by the Trial Court.
::3::
(c) Learned counsel further would submit that the Criminal Revision
Petition was partly allowed on 09.11.2021 by granting maintenance @
Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the
judgment in revision, the Petitioner being the husband preferred the present
petition to quash the impugned order in Criminal Revision Petition No.19/2019.
(d) Learned counsel further would submit that learned Sessions Judge
erred in awarding the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of
Respondent No.1 / wife by reversing the order passed in M.C No.31 of 2017
holding that she is entitled for maintenance since she has not deserted the
Petitioner.Learned counsel further would submit that learned Judge failed to
assess the income of the Petitioner and his obligation towards his parents.
(e) Learned counsel further would submit that since the Respondent
No.1 voluntarily herself left the company of the husband, she is not entitled to
get maintenance from the husband.
(f) Learned counsel further would submit that the Respondent No.1
herein never attended the husband even during the time when he met with a
major accident. Learned counsel finally prays for quashment of the impugned
order in Criminal Revision Petition No.19/2019.
4. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
would submit that according to the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 i.e., the wife is
getting income by doing weaving business but wife says she is living upon her
::4::
parents. There is no basis for learned Trial Judge in M.C.No.31/2017 to come
to the conclusion that the wife voluntarily deserted the company of the
husband.
(a) Learned counsel further would submit that a criminal case which is
lodged against the husband and his family members for the offences
punishable U/s 498-A etc., is pending before the Criminal Court. Wife also
lodged a case under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DVC Act, 2005') and the same was dismissed.
(b) Learned counsel further would submit that husband filed a petition
for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.No.144/2016 at Kandukur. When the
wife i.e., Respondent No.1 herein approached the Court seeking transfer of
that petition which was allowed, immediately thereafter the husband withdrew
the petition and now filed a petition for divorce.
(c) Learned counsel further would submit that the Petitioner left his wife
at her parents' house on 07.06.2016. Learned counsel further would submit
that there is no dispute about the relation between the parties and also the
capacity of the husband to maintain the wife and incapacity of the wife to
maintain herself. Such being the case, dismissing her claim is not tenable
under law. That is where the learned Judge in revision interfered and granted
maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month.
::5::
(d) Learned counsel further would submit that the Respondent No.1
herein sought maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month but learned has granted
only Rs.5,000/- per month which is not suffice to her to live on part with the
status of her husband who is working as Cashier in Canara Bank. Learned
counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Having heard the submissions, the point that would emerge for
determination is
Whether there are any grounds for quashment of the order passed in
Criminal Revision Petition No.19/2019 while exercising the jurisdiction
U/s 482 of Cr.P.C?
6. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the Code
envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or effected so
as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under
the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii)
to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 Cr.P.C.
jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial Court, Court of Appeal or a Court of
Revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice,
depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be
invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice,
which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
::6::
7. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must
be present. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others1is considered as the guiding
torch in the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the
circumstances are spelt out as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
AIR1992 SC 604
::7::
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing
a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will
not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
(emphasis supplied)
In the backdrop of the legal position referred to supra, the present case
has to be scrutinized.
8. This is a case where the wife and minor daughter have approached the
Court seeking maintenance U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Judge granted
maintenance to the child but rejected the maintenance to the wife and opined
that she left the company of her husband voluntarily and not entitled for the
maintenance. Needless to say, when the wife is claiming maintenance from
the husband, she has to prove that she has been living separately from the
husband with a reasonable cause and she has no income to maintain herself
and the husband having income to maintain wife, refused or neglected to
maintain her.
::8::
9. Learned Trial Judge having appreciated the evidence on record come to
the conclusion that there is no harassment against the wife by the husband
and she has left the company of the husband voluntarily.
10. Admittedly, a criminal case is pending before the Competent Criminal
Court which was filed by the wife. According to the wife, the husband left her
at her parents' house on 07.06.2016. It is also not in dispute that the husband
initially filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights but thereafter he has
withdrawn the said petition and filed a divorce petition.
11. Under these circumstances, when there is no dispute about the relation
between the parties and also on the incapacity of the wife to maintain herself,
granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Respondent No.1 by the
Court,on Revision, cannot be interfered. In that view the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed by confirming the
judgment dated 09.11.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.19/2019
by learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dt: 14.11.2024
krk
::9::
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dt:14.11.2024
krk
