Telangana High Court
Ch. Raghunath, vs Smt. Chatari Saritha, Another, on 21 February, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRL.R.C.No.808 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated
14.03.2007 in M.C.No.293 of 2005, on the file of the Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum-Additional Family Court,
Hyderabad, wherein the said maintenance case filed by the
respondent-wife was partly allowed awarding an amount of
Rs.1,500/- per month to the first respondent-wife towards
maintenance from the date of petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and the
learned counsel for the first respondent-wife. Perused the record.
3. The first respondent herein is the wife. She filed M.C.No.293
of 2005 seeking maintenance. By order dated 14.03.2007, the learned
Judge, Family Court, granted maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to
the first respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioner-
husband filed the present criminal revision case.
4. During enquiry, the first respondent herein was examined as
P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 4 were also examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were
marked and the petitioner herein was examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2
was also examined and Exs.R-1 to R-10 were marked. Based on the
evidence available on record, the learned Judge, Family Court,
recorded the findings as stated above.
5. The learned trial Judge while answering issue No.2 has
categorically held that there is no evidence to prove that the
respondent is unable to do electrical business or electrical services as
usual. The petitioner-husband produced Ex.R-3 case sheet along with
medical prescriptions and medical bills which shows that he
underwent medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident. Further, no evidence was adduced to prove that he is not an
able bodied person at present. The accident occurred in the year 2004
and he was discharged from the hospital and his mental faculties are
functioning properly which is evident from the fact that he can
give his evidence effectively. He cannot deny adequate maintenance
to the wife on the ground that he sustained injuries in the accident
somewhere in the year 2004. Accordingly, the learned Judge,
Additional Family Court came to the conclusion that the revision
petitioner was in all probability earning not less than Rs.5,000/- per
month on the business and awarded an amount of Rs.1,500/- per
month towards maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of
the petition i.e., 12.12.2005 to be paid on or before 10th of every
month. The grounds raised by the revision petitioner that he had
undergone operation to the brain and he is not attending works, is not
tenable, without there being any evidence on record. This court is in
agreement with the findings recorded by the court below and is not
inclined to interfere with the said findings.
6. According to the respondent-wife, the petitioner was in arrears.
Therefore, the revision petitioner-husband is directed to deposit the
entire arrears of maintenance within a period of three months from
today and shall continue to pay the maintenance as awarded by the
court below commencing from February, 2022 on or before 10th of
March, 2022, failing which the respondent-wife is at liberty to realize
the same in accordance with law.
7. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or
irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction.
8. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
Date: 21.02.2022
Lrkm
