Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kota Suryanarayana Babu Boyreddy vs A Priya Radhika Or Adusumalli Lakshmi ... on 26 October, 2024
APHC010127042018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2034/2018
Between:
Kota Suryanarayana Babu Boyreddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
A Priya Radhika Or ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Adusumalli Lakshmi Radhika
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. SUBBA RAO POSANI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. N RAVI PRASAD
The Court made the following:
2
VS,J
Crlp_2034_2018
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the M.C.No.01 of
2018 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur,
which was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
2) Petitioner herein is the respondent, and respondent Nos.1
and 3 herein are the petitioners in M.C.No.1 of 2018. They have
filed the said maintenance case seeking a direction to the petitioner
herein to pay maintenance of Rs.50,000/- each per month to
respondent Nos.1 and 3.
3) Respondent Nos.1 and 3 herein filed maintenance case
against the petitioner alleging that respondent No.1 herein married
one Thota Ramesh on 22.03.2008. The petitioner herein is no other
than the maternal uncle of respondent No.1. The marriage between
respondent No.1 and Thota Ramesh went into rough weather and
cases were also instituted by respondent No.1 on Thota Ramesh
and his family members in the same year. At that period,
respondent No.1 came to Singarayakonda village and during the
course of time, the petitioner herein taking advantage of the
helpless condition of respondent No.1, entered into her life and both
lived together under "living relations", and while respondent No.1
was staying at her parents house at Mulaguntapadu village,
whereas petitioner herein has been staying at Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad. The petitioner has pressurized respondent No.1 to shift
her residence to Hyderabad. Thereafter, respondent No.1 shifted to
Hyderabad and put up her family at D.No.203, Swathi Apartments,
Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad and they lived together as wife
VS,J
Crlp_2034_2018
and husband, though the petitioner herein was married and
respondent No.1 by then did not take divorce. Because of the extra
matrimonial relation with the petitioner, respondent No.1 became
pregnant and gave birth to a female child namely Preethi Akshaya
Surya Babu on 20.03.2014 at K.V.Nursing Home, Santhapet,
Ongole. The living relation and living together is known to one and
all including the family members of the petitioner. Respondent No.1
informed about the child birth to the petitioner, but he did not turn
up. Having no other option, respondent No.1 along with her mother
went to the Banjara Hills police station and gave a complaint to the
police explaining the cheating attitude of the petitioner and extra
marital relationship to the police, then police left the issue to
respondent No.1 and the petitioner herein. As the petitioner herein
deserted respondent No.1 and having no other source of income,
respondent Nos.1 and 3 herein filed maintenance case No.1 of 2018
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Kandukur against the petitioner herein seeking maintenance
at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month each to
respondent Nos.1 and 3. The present petition is filed to quash the
proceedings in M.C.No.1 of 2018.
4) On 27.02.2018, when the present petition came up for
hearing, this Court passed the following interim order.
"........
Under these circumstances, all further proceedings
against the petitioner in M.C.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur, are stayed until further
orders."
VS,J
Crlp_2034_2018
5) Thereafter, the said interim order has been extended from
time to time.
6) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner is a married person and the marriage of respondent No.1
was performed with one Thota Ramesh on 22.03.2008. Even as per
the allegations of respondent No.1, she stayed with the petitioner in
"live in relationship", therefore, the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
cannot be enlarged by introducing any artificial definition to include
a woman not lawfully married in the expression "wife". The
respondent No.1 has not filed any proof to show that she is legally
wedded wife of the petitioner to claim maintenance from him.
Respondent No.1 filed maintenance case under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. for wrongful gain and to cause harm to his reputation. As
respondent No.1 is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner, she is
not entitled for any maintenance and requested to dismiss the
petition.
7) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the
petitioner and respondent No.1 lived together at Hyderabad as
husband and wife, and that respondent No.1 gave birth to a female
child. As respondent Nos.1 and 3 have no other source of income,
they are entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner, as such
she filed maintenance case before the trial Court, and requested to
dismiss the present petition.
8) Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel
representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on
record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:
VS,J
Crlp_2034_2018
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioner in
M.C.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Kandukur, are liable to be quashed by exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"
P O I N T:
9) The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
10) Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High
Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious
proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it
must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can
lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be
useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the
advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to
prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration
of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court
exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section
482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards
existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be
exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external
in nature to meet the ends of justice.
VS,J
Crlp_2034_2018
11) Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was highlighted by the Apex Court in long
line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:
12) Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the
High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the
process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of
the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in
cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken
by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in
exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not,
however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of
the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in
conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it
appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the
statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the
offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that
the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there
would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held
by the Apex Court in "Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar1"
13) Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine
the case on hand.
14) The petitioner sought to quash the Maintenance Case filed
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Before going into merits of the case, it
AIR 1990 SC 494
VS,J
Crlp_2034_2018
would be relevant to refer to Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which is
extracted hereunder.
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and
parents.
(1)If any person having sufficient means neglects or
refuses to maintain -
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether
married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married
daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by
reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to
maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or
herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such
neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly
allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or
mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to
pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to
time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a
minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such
allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is
satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married,
is not possessed of sufficient means.
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the
pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the
maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a
monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such
child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding
VS,J
Crlp_2034_2018
which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same
to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.
Provided also that an application for the monthly
allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be
disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice
of the application to such person.
15) Respondent No.1 admitted in her petition filed under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. that on the request of the petitioner, she put up family
at D.No.203, Swathi Apartments, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad
and lived together as wife and husband. The specific pleading in the
petition filed by respondent No.1 is as follows:
"they living together as wife and husband though the
respondent (petitioner herein) is married and 1st petitioner
(respondent No.1 herein) also by then did not take divorce."
16) From the above, it can be held that respondent No.1 and the
petitioner lived together as wife and husband, but they have not
married, therefore, respondent No.1 is not the wife of petitioner
No.1. As per clause (a) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. if any person
neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, she is entitled to claim
maintenance from her husband. But, in the present case, as per the
averments in the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,
respondent No.1 is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
17) In "Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat and
Others 2 ", relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
Apex Court held that "marriage of a woman in accordance with
(2005) 3 SCC 636
VS,J
Crlp_2034_2018
Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in
the eye of the law. Such woman is, therefore, not entitled to the
benefit of Section 125, Cr.P.C. or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Scope of Section 125 cannot be enlarged by introducing any
artificial definition to include a woman not lawfully married in the
expression 'wife'."
18) The Apex Court in "Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs.
Anantrao Shivram Adhav3" relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, held that the expression "wife" used in Section 125 of the
Code should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife. The
word "wife" is not defined in the Code except indicating in the
explanation to Section 125 its inclusive character so as to cover a
divorcee.
19) In "Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha 4 "
relied on by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3, the
Apex Court held that a broad and expansive interpretation should be
given to the term 'wife' to include even those cases where a man
and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a
reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should
not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C., so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial
provision of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
20) The law laid down in the said judgment is not in dispute, but
the same is not applicable to the present facts of the case for the
(1988) 1 SCC 530
(2011) 1 SCC 141
VS,J
Crlp_2034_2018
reason that as to the period of time, that can be considered as "long
period of time" was not specified in the said case and in the present
case, as the petitioner and respondent No.1 are married persons as
on the date of complainant. As per the allegations in the complaint,
the petitioner and respondent No.1 started living together
somewhere in 2008, and respondent No.1 gave birth to a female
child in 2014, so they lived together for a period of 6 years, that may
not be considered as „long period of time‟
21) By applying the principles laid down in Savitaben Somabhai
Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat and Others", "Yamunabai Anantrao
Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav" (referred supra), as
respondent No.1 is not a legally wedded wife of the petitioner, the
maintenance case is liable to be dismissed in respect of respondent
No.1 herein only.
22) Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
deals with Maintenance of Children and aged parents, which reads
thus:
"20. Maintenance of children and aged parents. - (1)
Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during
his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate
children and his or her aged or infirm parents.
(2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim
maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child
is a minor.
(3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged
or infirm parents or daughter who is unmarried extends insofar as
the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is
VS,J
Crlp_2034_2018
unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own
earnings or other property."
23) In the present case, respondent No.1 gave birth to a female
child, respondent No.3 herein, therefore, the child is entitled for
maintenance as per clause (2) of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956. The legitimacy of respondent No.3 is
not an issue to be decided by this Court in a petition filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As per clause (b) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
the legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not,
unable to maintain itself, is entitled for maintenance from his/her
father. The respondent No.3, either legitimate or illegitimate child, is
entitled to claim maintenance from her father. Therefore, the
maintenance case in respect of respondent No.3 herein cannot be
quashed.
24) Accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing
M.C.No.01 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Kandukur in respect of respondent No.1 herein - wife only.
However, the trial Court is directed to continue the proceedings in
M.C.No.01 of 2018 in respect of respondent No.3 herein - child
uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
25) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand
closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
26.10.2024
Ksp
