Mohd.Sifathullah, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 327 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                      CRL.R.C.No.1334 OF 2008

JUDGMENT :

This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated

07.08.2008 in M.C.No.61 of 2007, on the file of Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC-cum-

Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge,

Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by respondent No.2 herein

under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was allowed-in-part awarding a sum of

Rs.1,500/- towards monthly maintenance to respondent No.2 from the

date of petition i.e., 02.03.2007, besides directing that respondent

No.2 was entitled to maintenance till he attains majority.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.2 herein, who is minor son of petitioner,

represented by his mother, filed M.C.No.61 of 2007 claiming

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month on the ground that the petitioner,

herein though was having sufficient means neglected to maintain

respondent No.2. The petitioner, who is the father of respondent No.2,

filed counter before the Family Court opposing the claim for

maintenance and denying his liability to pay on the ground that the

respondent No.2 has no justification to live separately and seek

separate maintenance.

4. The learned Judge, Family Court framed the following points

for consideration:

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance from the respondent?

             ii)     If so, to what amount?

             iii)    To what relief?

5. During the course of enquiry, P.W.1, who is mother of the

minor son, was examined on behalf of respondent No.1 herein and no

documentary evidence was adduced by her and R.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined on behalf of the petitioner herein and Ex.R-1 salary

certificate was marked.

6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the

learned Judge, Family Court allowed the maintenance case in part

awarding a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards monthly maintenance to

respondent No.2 from the date of petition i.e., 02.03.2007, besides

directing that respondent No.2 was entitled to maintenance till he

attains majority. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

7. The matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the

mother of respondent No.1 is not disputed. It is also admitted that

respondent No.2 was born to them out of lawful wedlock. It is also

not disputed that there has been estrangement between the petitioner

and the mother of respondent No.2 since quite some time and they are

living separately. The learned Judge, Family Court, on due

appreciation of the evidence available on record held that respondent

No.2 is justified in living separately with his mother and seek separate

maintenance on account of the ill-treatment meted out by the

petitioner to her mother. The said finding recorded, on proper

appreciation of the evidence, does not, therefore, call for any

interference by this Court. The liability of the petitioner to provide

maintenance to respondent No.2, who is his minor son, cannot,

therefore, be disputed.

8. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, it is not disputed that

the petitioner is working as an employee in a private company.

According to respondent No.2, the petitioner is a businessman and

earning sufficiently and that he has got financial capacity to pay

Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance. The petitioner, however,

states that he is working as ADR carrier private company and earning

Rs.2500/- per month. Though the petitioner produced salary

certificate Ex.R-1 and claimed that he was earning Rs.2,500/- per

month, he failed to prove the salary certificate. He has also not

adduced any evidence to show that the mother of respondent No.2 has

got any independent means of livelihood. The evidence on record

establish that the petitioner has suppressed his actual salary particulars

and it can safely be held that he is earning not less than Rs.5,000/- per

month, as observed by the learned Family Court. In the circumstances,

the amount of Rs.1,500/- per month awarded by the learned Family

Court towards maintenance to respondent No.2 herein cannot be

considered either excessive or unreasonable.

9. The impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,

does not, therefore, suffer from any illegality or material irregularity

so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional

jurisdiction.

10. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI Date: 31.01.2022 Lrkm