Amirichetty Prabhakar vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp 2 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4447 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    CRL.R.C.No.1201 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case is directed against the docket

order dated 23.08.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.1585 of 2011 in

M.C.No.214 of 2011, on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by

respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein i.e., children of the petitioner

claiming interim maintenance was allowed directing the petitioner

to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- each per month to

respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the material on record.

3. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed maintenance case under Section

125(1) Cr.P.C., before the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga

Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, claiming maintenance from the

petitioner. It is stated by respondents 2 and 3 in the petition filed in

support of the maintenance case that marriage of petitioner and

their mother viz., Smt.A.Manikyamma was performed in the year

1991 and out of the wedlock, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were born to

them; that petitioner is a Government servant working as Assistant

Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department; that the petitioner left the

company of their mother in 2006 and since then he was not

providing any maintenance to them; that respondent Nos.2 and 3

are the students pursuing their education and they are in need of

maintenance. Hence, they prayed for grant of interim maintenance

at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each per month. The petitioner has not

filed counter in the said petition and was set ex parte, as he

remained absent. The petitioner filed counter in the main case.

4. The learned Judge, Family Court, after considering the

material on record and taking into account that the petitioner herein

is drawing a salary of Rs.60,000/- per month and also the fact that

the petitioner intentionally neglected and refused to maintain

respondent Nos.2 and 3, awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each

per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the date of order.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present revision

case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court

below has not taken into consideration the counter filed by the

petitioner in the maintenance case for the purpose of deciding the

interim maintenance application; that there is dispute with regard to

the marriage between the petitioner and the mother of respondent

Nos.2 and 3 and without there being any proof of marriage, the

court below accepted the contention of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and

awarded interim maintenance and the same is illegal and liable to

be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.2 and 3 submits that though the petitioner filed counter in

the maintenance case denying the marriage between him and

Smt.Manikyamma, but after prima facie considering that

respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of petitioner and

Manikyamma, awarded interim maintenance and the same does not

suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by

this court.

7. It appears that the petitioner herein is disputing his marriage

with one Smt.Manikyamma, who is mother of respondent Nos.2

and 3. In the counter filed by him in the maintenance case, he

stated that the mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3 used to work in

the same office where the petitioner was working and got

acquaintance with her and he helped her four to five times and that

there is no relationship as claimed by respondent Nso.2 and 3. The

petitioner has not only disputed the marriage with Manikyamma

but also disputed the birth of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Undisputedly, the mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the

petitioner are Government employees and are acquainted with each

other. It is stated that taking advantage of acquaintance,

respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed maintenance case and also a suit in

O.S.No.2100 of 2011 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District for partition of properties of the petitioner,

which properties were succeeded through his mother.

8. So far as the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., are

concerned, the persons claiming maintenance, as children born to

the petitioner and Smt.Manikyamma, has to prove that their mother

was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. When a counter is

filed by the petitioner specifically denying the relationship of

marriage with the mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the learned

Judge, Family Court could not have decided the interim

maintenance application and instead could have decided the main

petition itself in accordance with law after giving opportunity

to both parties to lead appropriate evidence for the purpose of

deciding the question as to whether the mother of respondent Nos.2

and 3 Smt.Manikyamma is the legally wedded wife of the

petitioner and they are their children. The issue as regards legality

of the marriage which has bearing on the award of maintenance

may also have to be decided by the learned Judge, Family Court

before awarding maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3.

9. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned

Judge, Family Court has not taken into consideration the denial of

petitioner regarding his marriage with Smt.Manikyamma and

also about the birth of respondent Nos.2 and 3 to them and

without considering the said aspect, awarded interim maintenance

to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The impugned order, therefore, suffers

from patent illegality warranting interference by this court and it is

liable to be set aside.

10. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, allowed. The

impugned docket order dated 23.08.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.1585 of

2011 in M.C.No.214 of 2011, on the file of the Family Court,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside.

The learned Judge, Family Court is directed to dispose of

M.C.No.214 of 2011 within a period of three months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order.

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

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 07.09.2022 Lrkm