Mohd. Jan vs Rajia Sultana
2022 Latest Caselaw 1815 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                     CRL.R.C.No.226 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment

dated 14.11.2018 in Crl.A.No.213 of 2017, on the file of the

learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI-Additional Sessions Judge,

Nalgonda, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein

was dismissed, confirming the order dated 06.11.2017 in

D.V.C.No.20 of 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of

the First Class (Special Mobile Court), at Nalgonda.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

for the first respondent.

3. The first respondent is wife of the petitioner herein. She

filed D.V.C.No.20 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of the

First Class (Special Mobile Court), at Nalgonda against her

husband (petitioner herein) and the relatives of her husband, who

are three in number. The learned Magistrate, after examination of

the witnesses and considering the material available on record,

found that the petitioner herein alone has indulged in domestic

violence and accordingly allowed the DVC in part against

the petitioner and dismissed the DVC as against three others.

The learned Magistrate, while dismissing the DVC, directed the

petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the

first respondent towards maintenance. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the learned Judge,

Family Court in Crl.A.No.213 of 2017. The learned Judge, on

re-appreciation of the evidence on record, by judgment dated

14.11.2018, confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate

in D.V.C.No.20 of 2015 awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per

month.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first

respondent filed a case against petitioner herein (A-1) and two

others under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC in C.C.No.906 of 2014,

on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class

for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nalgonda. After trial, the

said case ended in acquittal. The first respondent filed a domestic

violence case on similar grounds and after considering the material

available on record, the learned Magistrate found that

the petitioner herein has committed domestic violence case and

directed petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month

towards maintenance. The learned counsel further contends that in

the maintenance case filed by the first respondent herein, the

learned Magistrate had already granted maintenance under Section

125 Cr.P.C., for an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first

respondent and in addition to that, the learned Magistrate in DVC

case has ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards

maintenance. The learned counsel further contends that the

petitioner has also pronounced divorce to the respondent in the

month of November, 2014. Later, the DVC case was filed in the

year 2015 and the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that there

was no relationship between the parties at the time of filing the

DVC case and in spite of that, the learned Magistrate ordered

maintenance to the first respondent. Therefore, learned counsel

prays for allowing the criminal revision case. In support of his

contentions, he relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High

Court in ANIL S/O SHRI SUGANCHANDRA JAIN v.

SM.SUNITA, W/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN1.

2016(4) Crimes 648

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent

contends that granting of divorce is not a ground to deny

maintenance to the first respondent and the trial court after

elaborate enquiry held that the petitioner committed domestic

violence and thereby ordered maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month.

The acquittal of the petitioner in C.C.No.906 of 2014 for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC by the

criminal court is also not a ground to deny the maintenance to the

first respondent. The learned counsel further contends that there

are no reasonable or justifiable grounds to interfere with the

concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below and prays

for dismissal of the revision. In support of his contentions, he relied

on the unreported decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court-

Srinagar Bench in NISSAR AHMAD MATOO v. ULFAT2

6. On a perusal of the entire material on record, including the

judgments passed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate

court, this court is of the view that both the courts below have

properly appreciated the evidence on record and gave concurrent

CRM(M) No.36/2020, dt.05.02.2021

findings. Coming to the first contention raised by learned counsel

for the petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted for the offence

under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC is not a ground to deny

maintenance to the first respondent. The other contention that the

first respondent is a divorcee and the petitioner divorced her in the

month of November, 2014 is also no ground to deny maintenance.

It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a divorcee is

also entitled for maintenance and it is no more a res integra.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a wife can claim

maintenance under different statutes and as such, there is no bar to

seek maintenance both under the Domestic Violence Act as well as

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This court is not convinced with the

submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. There are no

grounds to interfere.

7. In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any

illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the trial court as

well as by the lower appellate court. There are no merits in this

revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. The criminal revision case, is accordingly, dismissed.

9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 11.04.2022 Lrkm