Telangana High Court
K. Sathaiah vs Korpuri Saritha on 6 June, 2022
Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.R.C.No.700 of 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the
judgment dated 20.03.2019 in D.V.Appeal No.181 of 2017 the file of
the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, wherein the said
appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein was allowed, directing the
petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to respondent No.1 and her
two minor children at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to her and
Rs.2500/- per month each to the children of petitioner and respondent
No.1 till they attain majority.
2. The petitioner and the first respondent herein are husband and
wife. The first respondent filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2014 against the
petitioner herein and other three respondents therein claiming various
reliefs. The petitioner and others opposed the petition by filing
counter. After due enquiry, the learned Magistrate prohibited the
petitioner herein and other respondents therein from committing any
act of domestic violence against petitioner herein and her relatives
and also directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs
towards compensation under Section 22 of Protection of Domestic
2 ASR,J
Crl_Rc_700_2019
Violence Act, 2005 and refused to grant maintenance to the first
respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed
appeal in D.V.Appeal No.181 of 2017. The learned Sessions Judge,
on re-appreciation of the evidence on record allowed the appeal and
ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance as stated supra.
3. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the present revision is filed
on the ground that the Court below erred in granting maintenance to
the first respondent and two minor children without any material
evidence. The appellate Court has not placed any reliance on the
evidence of petitioner herein and failed to take notice of the fact that
the first respondent is doing private job in mobile shop and also doing
tailoring work and she got sufficient means to maintain herself. The
appellate court failed to observe that the trial Court has not granted
maintenance to the first respondent and the appellate Court awarding
maintenance is illegal and not sustainable under law.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the first respondent. Perused the record.
3 ASR,J
Crl_Rc_700_2019
5. Admittedly, the petitioner and the first respondent are
husband and wife and their marriage was held on 05.06.2009 and it is
still in subsistence.
6. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the first
respondent left the society of the petitioner as the petitioner used to
suspect her character and on the said ground the trial Court
prima facie held that she is not entitled to claim maintenance, which
is found to be not tenable. It also reveals that during the pendency of
DVC case before the trial Court at the instance of petitioner, DNA
test was conducted at FSL, Hyderabad and as per the DNA report, he
is the biological father of the second son of the first respondent.
Therefore, there is no dispute that both sons are born to the petitioner.
The petitioner has made allegation that the first respondent was
leading adulterous life and it appears that the petitioner has gone to
the extent of alleging that the second son born to the first respondent
was not born through him, however, he is the biological father of
second son in view of DNA report. In the said circumstances, it was
rightly held by the appellate Court the first respondent was justified in
living separately as the act of petitioner amounts to cruelty.
4 ASR,J
Crl_Rc_700_2019
7. The contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent is
having sufficient means to maintain herself. She is doing private job
in mobile shop and doing tailoring work and has got sufficient
earnings to maintain herself. It appears from the record that the said
fact is not proved by placing any reliable evidence by the petitioner.
As such, the said contention of petitioner is not considered by the
appellate Court.
8. After having gone through the evidence and order impugned
more particularly at para Nos.22 to 25, it appears that the first
respondent is not working anywhere and she is a housewife and she
has to maintain herself and her two minor children. The petitioner is
working as RTC driver and earning a sum of Rs.23,000/- in the year
2016. In view of the increase in the cost of living, the appellate Court
has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the first
respondent and Rs.2500/- per month each to the two minor sons of
the petitioner and the first respondent till they attain majority from the
date of impugned order.
9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view
that the appellate Court has passed well reasoned order and did not
5 ASR,J
Crl_Rc_700_2019
suffer from any infirmity or illegalities warranting interference by this
Court at this stage.
10. The criminal revision case is dismissed.
________________________
A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J
06.06.2022
Nvl
6 ASR,J
Crl_Rc_700_2019
