P.Suresh Reddy vs K.Yashoda Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4256 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    CRL.R.C.No.613 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case is directed against the order

dated 03.12.2015 in M.P.No.59 of 2013 in M.C.No.338 of 2012, on

the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the

said petition filed by the 1st respondent-wife was allowed, directing

the petitioner-husband to pay maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per

month from January, 2015 and also one time legal expenses of

Rs.30,000/- to the wife.

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

counsel for the 1st respondent-wife. Perused the material on record.

3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition by

the 1st respondent-wife that she is the legally wedded wife of

petitioner herein and their marriage was held on 09.03.2009 as per

Christian rites and customs and after marriage, they lived happily

for some time and later disputes arose between them and they

are living separately. The petitioner herein filed O.P.No.833 of

2012 against the 1st respondent- wife for dissolution of marriage

while the 1st respondent-wife filed O.P.No.1538 of 2012 for

restitution of conjugal rights. She filed also M.C.No.338 of 2012

seeking maintenance. During the pendency of the maintenance

case, the 1st respondent-wife filed a petition in M.P.No.59 of 2013

under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C seeking a sum of Rs.30,000/- per

month towards maintenance and Rs.30,000/- per month towards

legal expenses.

4. It is further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner-husband

is working as Project Manager in IBM Corporation, drawing a

salary of Rs.2 lakhs per month and that he owns a flat worth

Rs.30 lakhs. The petitioner-husband filed counter inter alia

denying the averments made in the affidavit and stating that the

1st respondent-wife is earning a salary of more than Rs.15,000/- per

month by working in CD EQUI SEARCH, Begumpet and that she

owns movable and immovable properties.

5. The learned Judge, Family Court after taking into

consideration the submissions of both sides allowed the petition

and awarded maintenance as stated above. Feeling aggrieved and

dissatisfied with the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, the

present revision is filed by the petitioner-husband.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court

below has not taken into consideration that the 1st respondent-wife

is working and drawing a salary of more than Rs.15,000/- per

month, besides owning movable and immovable properties; that

the petitioner is drawing a salary of only Rs.1 lakh and the award

of maintenance at Rs.30,000/- per month is exorbitant and prayed

to set aside the impugned order; and that the 1st respondent herself

deserted the petitioner from the matrimonial home and she is not

entitled to maintenance.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-wife

submits that the 1st respondent has no source of income and she

does not have any movable and immovable properties, as alleged,

and the court below, after taking into consideration the said

circumstances, has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per

month. Learned counsel prays to dismiss the revision.

8. The undisputed facts are that the marriage of the petitioner

and first respondent was held on 09.03.2009 and they lived

happily for some time and later disputes arose between them

and are living separately. The petitioner herein filed O.P.No.833 of

2012 against the 1st respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage,

while the 1st respondent-wife filed O.P.No.1538 of 2012 for

restitution of conjugal rights. The 1st respondent-wife filed

M.C.No.338 of 2012 seeking maintenance. During the pendency

of the maintenance case, the 1st respondent-wife filed a petition in

M.P.No.59 of 2013 under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C seeking a sum

of Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.30,000/-

per month towards legal expenses.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that

the 1st respondent-wife herself deserted the husband from the

matrimonial home and, therefore, she is not entitled for any

maintenance. The said aspect cannot be decided in the application

filed by the wife claiming maintenance and it can be decided only

after adducing evidence by both the parties. In the lengthy counter

affidavit filed by the petitioner-husband, it is averred that on

11.03.2010, the 1st respondent-wife went away and she failed to

join his company and later there is no communication between

them. Since the wife was not responding, there was no option

left to him except to file a petition for dissolution of marriage.

On the contrary, the contention of the wife is that she never left the

house of her in-laws. She averred that in the month of November,

2010, her husband purposefully quarreled with her and necked

her out from the house. Therefore, the allegations and counter

allegations about the desertion can only be decided after adducing

evidence by both parties at the time of final disposal of the

maintenance case.

10. In the revision petition, it is stated by the petitioner that

he is getting Rs.90,000/-, out of Rs.1 lakh, salary, as 10% salary

is deducted towards TDS. Out of the said Rs.90,000/-, he spends

Rs.22,000/- towards lodging and boarding, Rs.5,000/- towards

transportation, Rs.39,350/- is deducted towards EMI for Citi Bank

and Rs.13,554/- EMI for Bajaj Finance. It is further stated that he

sold away the flat at Sainakpuri on 10.05.2012 for Rs.11 lakhs

and cleared the bank loan. Therefore, he is unable to pay

maintenance, as ordered by the court below. It appears that the

revision petitioner has not placed proper evidence in the

miscellaneous petition as to the income and the salary he is

earning. The court below has also observed that the petitioner left

the job from IBM and presently he is working in Pune, drawing a

salary of Rs.1 lakh per month. Therefore, there is no dispute about

the income of the husband drawing Rs.1 lakh per month. Though

it is contended by the petitioner that the 1st respondent-wife is

working in CD EQUI SEARCH, Begumpet, drawing a salary of

Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not placed any evidence to

substantiate the said contention. The court below has taken care of

the contentions raised by the petitioner herein before awarding

maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the 1st respondent.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in SAVITRI v. GOVIND SINGH

RAWAT1 held that interim maintenance, pending disposal of the

application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, can awarded. Though there

was no provision in the Code for grant of interim maintenance

allowance to the wife, but it was held that the court has power to

grant such interim maintenance allowance in case the court is

satisfied that there are reasons to do so.

12. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that there

are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

AIR 1986 SC 984

The interim maintenance is subject to final adjudication of the

main petition and the contentions raised by the petitioner can

also be revised and the interim maintenance granted herein is

only a provisional maintenance, subject to final determination and

is subject to other conditions like income etc. Therefore, the

the impugned order does suffer from any infirmity warranting any

interference by this court.

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

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

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 24.08.2022 Lrkm