Banoth Parvathi vs Banoth Laxman And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7022 Tel

                                         1
                                                                             Dr.GRR, J
                                                                       CRLRC_337_2020


           THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI


               CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.337 OF 2020


ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-wife aggrieved by the

order dated 11.10.2019 in Criminal Revision Petition No.15 of 2019 on the file of

the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, reducing the maintenance awarded to her

from Rs.5,000 to Rs.2,000/- per month modifying the order dated 29.12.2017 made

in M.C.No.52 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Khammam.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that she filed a petition under Section

125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to her

and Rs.5,000/- per month to her son. She was the legally wedded wife of the

respondent and their marriage took place on 09.05.1999 as per the Hindu rites and

customs. Out of the said wedlock, the petitioner No.2 was born. After their

marriage, they lived happily for a period of nine (09) years. Subsequently the

respondent was addicted to all vices and started harassing them physically and

mentally. He demanded additional dowry. He used to consume alcohol, come

home late in the night, harass and bet her indiscriminately before neighbours. He

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020

also suspected her fidelity. The respondent developed illicit contact with one

Padma and used to reside with her and not bothered about the necessities of the

petitioners. The respondent also took away his son i.e., the petitioner No.2 without

intimating the petitioner No.1 and did not turn up. Thereby, the petitioner No.1

lodged a report before PS Yellandu. Police registered a case in Crime No.176 of

2011 for "man missing". She also made a representation before SC and ST

Commission on 31.10.2011. After three months, Police handed over petitioner

No.2 from the possession of the respondent. At that time, the respondent

blackmailed the petitioner No.1 to give consent for divorce. Accordingly, the

petitioner No.1 filed a divorce petition before the Agency Court at Kothagudem.

The respondent obtained divorce vide judgment in O.S.No.2 of 2012 dated

08.06.2012. As the respondent neglected the petitioners, to maintain them, a

panchayat was held.

3. The petitioner further stated that the respondent was a government teacher

and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. Apart from that, he was doing

realestate business in and around Khammam Rural Mandal and Khammam Town

and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Thus, in all he was earning Rs.50,000/-

per month. She claimed maintenance from the respondent.

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020

4. The respondent filed counter. He admitted the relationship between him and

the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, but denied the other averments. He contended that the

Petitioner No.1 was in the habit of filing various cases including the case for

maintenance filed by her earlier before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Yellandu vide M.C.No.23 of 2012 and suppressing the said fact, she filed

the present case. As such, the same was not maintainable. He further contended

that during the pendency of the case in O.S.No.2 of 2012 before the Agency

Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, the matter was settled between them and he as

full and final settlement, paid Rs.4,10,000/- to the petitioner No.1. While settling

the matter, the petitioner No.1 agreed to withdraw all the cases including the M.C.

filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu and that he would give

his consent for divorce filed by the petitioner No.1. The petitioner after receiving

full and final settlement, filed the petition only to blackmail him and prayed to

dismiss the petition.

5. The petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and her mother as PW.2 and got

marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and also

examined RWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.3 on his behalf. The trial

court on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020

the petition granting monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and

Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner No.2 from the date of the order.

6. Aggrieved by the said order in M.C.No.52 of 2012 dated 29.12.2017 by the

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, the respondent preferred

Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2019. The said petition was heard by the learned Principal

Sessions Judge, Khammam and vide order dated 11.10.2019, the learned Principal

Sessions Judge partly allowed the revision reducing the maintenance awarded to

the petitioner No.1 from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,000/- while confirming the

maintenance granted to the petitioner No.2 and directed that the reduction of the

amount would come into effect from the date of the order on 11.10.2019.

7. Aggrieved by such reduction of maintenance, the petitioner No.1 preferred

this revision contending that the lower revisional court ought to have seen that the

respondent No.1 was working as a government teacher and was drawing

Rs.53,448/- per month as per the salary slip for the month of October, 2019. As

such, the learned Principal Sessions Judge ought not to have reduced the

maintenance to the petitioner No.1. The lower revisional court ought to have seen

that as the terms of settlement failed, the respondent No.1 had not paid money to

the petitioner and there was no evidence that the respondent No.1 paid any

lumpsum amount to the petitioner towards maintenance, as such ought not to have

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020

reduced the maintenance to the petitioner No.1 and prayed to allow the revision by

setting aside the order dated 11.10.2019 in Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2019 on the file of the

Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though, notice was

served on the respondent, he failed to appear before the Court or failed to engage

any counsel on his behalf. Hence, this Court proceeded to pass orders on merits.

9. Perused the record.

10. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam considered the contention

of the respondent that there was a settlement between the parties and that he paid

Rs.4,10,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards permanent alimony and Ex.R.3 was

the agreement dated 23.01.2012, signed by PW.1, but she disclaimed receipt of any

amount under it and RWs.1 to 3 stated that as per the terms of the settlement,

Rs.4,10,000/- were kept with one Subramanyam but PW.2, the mother of PW.1

admitted in her cross-examination that PW.1 received the said amount, held that

the respondent established that he paid Rs.4,10,000/- towards permanent alimony

to the petitioner No.1. He also considered the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the petitioner was not paid any maintenance but the documents

were obtained under coercion, observed that the petitioner had not challenged the

settlement terms arrived between them till then and allowed such terms to attain

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020

finality, as such, the contention that the terms were obtained under coercion had no

merits. He also further observed that if the circumstances required the permanent

alimony paid was no bar for grant of additional maintenance by taking into

consideration the amount which was paid, when the petitioner demonstrated the

need for additional maintenance.

11. This Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the observation of

the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam on the said aspect.

12. However, considering that the respondent was a Government Teacher and as

per the salary slip filed by the petitioners, belonging to the respondent issued by

the Head Master, School Complex, Government High School (JBS), Yellandu,

Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, dated 28.08.2021, the respondent was drawing a

gross total of Rs.76,904/- and taking into consideration the requirement of the

petitioners and the amount settled towards permanent alimony was only

Rs.4,10,000/-, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Principal Sessions

Judge, Khammam ought not to have reduced the amount of maintenance granted to

the petitioner No.1.

13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order

dated 11.10.2019 made in Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2019 on the file of the Principal

Sessions Judge, Khammam, confirming the orders of maintenance awarded to the

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_337_2020

petitioner @ Rs.5,000/- per month by the II Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Khammam in M.C.No.52 of 2012 dated 29.12.2017 but the same was

directed to be paid from the date of petition but not from the date of the order, as

directed by the said Court. The arrears are directed to be paid within two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J

27th December, 2022 nsk.