Mohammad Kadir Ali Mansoor, ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4240 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    CRL.R.C.No.676 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.01.2016 in

Crl.A.No.121 of 2015, on the file of the learned Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar,

wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein was

dismissed, confirming the order dated 10.07.2015 in D.V.C.No.2 of

2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar, wherein the learned Magistrate allowed the DVC

in part by directing the petitioner-husband to pay monthly

maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to both the second respondent-wife

and her daughter from the date of petition, the present revision has

been filed by the petitioner-husband.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and learned

counsel for the second respondent-wife. Perused the material on

record.

3. The second respondent herein is wife of the petitioner

herein. She filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2013 before the trial court against

the petitioner herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') seeking

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to her and Rs.10,000/- for

her daughter from the petitioner and also for damages at Rs.20

lakhs. She stated in the petition filed before the trial court that her

marriage with the petitioner was performed on 21.03.2011 and later

some disputes arose between them and she was necked out of the

house and had been staying with her parents. She further stated

that she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter and sought

maintenance and compensation. The petitioner opposed the

petition by filing counter inter alia stating that the amount awarded

by the learned Magistrate towards maintenance is exorbitant.

The second respondent-wife was examined as P.W.1 and the

petitioner-husband was examined as R.W.1. No documentary

evidence was adduced on behalf of both the parties. After due

enquiry, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay an

amount of Rs.3,000/- per month each to the second respondent-

wife and her daughter from the date of petition. Aggrieved

thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.121 of 2015.

The learned Sessions Judge, on re-appreciation of the evidence on

record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the

learned Magistrate.

4. The question that arises for considerations is whether the

impugned judgment passed by the appellate court confirming the

order passed by the trial court suffers from any illegality or

infirmity and needs interference?

5. On a perusal of the judgments of the courts below, it appears

that the petitioner has not disputed the relationship with his wife

and also admitted that they lived together happily for about 13

months. Later, owing to some disputes between them, the second

respondent was necked out of the house and she started living in

her parents' house where she gave birth to a female child.

She alleged that the petitioner has not taken her back as she did not

give birth to a male child. Though the petitioner denied the same,

admittedly he has not provided any maintenance to the second

respondent and her daughter. She also filed a case against her

husband and others against demand of additional dowry and the

same was registered by police, Wanaparthy for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. The petitioner filed the present revision challenging the

judgment of the appellate court mainly on the ground that the trial

court as well as the appellate court failed to appreciate the

evidence. The petitioner, as R.W.1, has not produced any oral or

documentary evidence about the income of his wife to show that

she is able to maintain herself and her daughter.

7. There is no dispute about the relationship between the

petitioner and second respondent as husband and wife and also the

birth of a female child out of the said wedlock. Admittedly, the

petitioner is not providing any maintenance to the second

respondent and her daughter. A perusal of the judgment passed by

the appellate court, on re-appraisal of the evidence on record,

shows that the learned Judge has rightly observed that the

petitioner had admitted that he worked as a Lecturer in a private

college earning Rs.7,000/- per month.

8. The trial court as well as the appellate court have rightly

come to the conclusion that the petitioner herein is having

sufficient means and that he neglected and refused to maintain the

second respondent and, accordingly, awarded an amount of

Rs.3,000/- per month each to the second respondent and her

daughter, which is not on the higher side.

9. In the circumstances and taking into consideration that

petitioner herein is working as a Lecturer in a private college and

keeping the present day cost of living and status of the second

respondent as wife of Lecturer, and also taking into consideration

the basic needs and requirements of the second respondent, the

awarding of Rs.3,000/- per month each towards maintenance is

quite reasonable and it is, therefore, considered that the impugned

order does not call for any interference.

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

11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 23.08.2022 Lrkm