Azmeera Jagan vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1170 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

      CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2217 of 2018

ORDER:

This criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of

Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/husband challenging the order,

dated 10.06.2018, passed in Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2014 in M.C.No.12

of 2010 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District

Judge at Khammam, whereby, on a petition filed by respondent

Nos.2 to 4 herein/wife and minor children, under Section 127

Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance to respondent No.2

@ Rs.10,000/- per month and respondent Nos.3 and 4 @

Rs.8,000/- per month each, the Court below enhanced the

maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month to

respondent No.2/wife and Rs.5,000/- per month each to

respondent Nos.3 and 4/minor children.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri T.P.Acharya, learned

counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the record.

3. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein/wife and minor children

filed the subject Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2014 before the Court below

seeking enhancement of maintenance contending that respondent

No.2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein.

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were born during their wedlock. When

the petitioner was working as a Teacher at Z.P.S.S.School,

Kamepally, he married respondent No.2. The petitioner forced the

respondent No.2 to give divorce, so that he can marry the younger

sister of respondent No.2, for which respondent No.2 refused, then

the petitioner started harassment. In the meanwhile, the

petitioner was promoted as Head Master. Respondent No.2,

unable to bear the harassment of the petitioner, approached the

elders and a panchayat was held. In the said panchayat, the

petitioner agreed to look after the respondent Nos.2 to 4 well, but

he did not keep up his promise and necked out the respondent

Nos.2 to 4. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed a criminal case

against the petitioner of the offence under Section 498A of IPC and

also the subject maintenance case, i.e., M.C.No.12 of 2010. In the

said Maintenance Case, at the intervention of elders, the petitioner

agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- to respondent Nos.2 to 4 for which, the

respondent Nos.2 to 4 agreed. Accordingly, the criminal case filed

for the offence under Section 498A of IPC was withdrawn. In view

of the changed circumstances, since the amount agreed by

respondent No.2 is not sufficient to meet the livelihood and

educational expenses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and since the

petitioner is working as Mandal Educational Officer and drawing

salary @ Rs.70,000/- per month, under these compelling

circumstances, respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed the subject

Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2014 to enhance the maintenance as stated

supra.

4. The petitioner filed counter in the subject Crl.M.P.No.111 of

2014 contending that respondent No.2 has adamant attitude and

used to misbehave with the petitioner. The Maintenance Case filed

against the petitioner was allowed on 09.09.2010 before Lok

Adalat and an Award in LAC No.1001 of 2010 was passed by the

Lok Adalat for an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month each to

respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner is paying the maintenance

amount as per the Award of the Lok Adalat. Having entered into a

compromise and having agreed to receive Rs.5,000/- per month

towards their maintenance, filing of the subject Crl.M.P.No.111 of

2014 by respondent No.2 is only to harass the petitioner. The

petitioner is also paying fees of Rs.34,000/- to respondent Nos.3

and 4 apart from arranging dresses to petitioners Nos.3 and 4.

5. On merits, the Court below enhanced the maintenance @

Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.5,000/- per

month each to respondent Nos.3 and 4. Aggrieved by the same,

this criminal revision case is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit

that there are no changed circumstances to enhance the

maintenance, as alleged. The Court below erred in accepting the

contention of the respondent No.2 that she is paying school fees of

respondent Nos.3 and 4, though she did not produce any receipts

with regard to the same. The Court below totally ignored the

receipts filed by the petitioner, which establish that he has been

paying school fees of the children and purchasing books and

dresses for them. The petitioner is regularly paying the monthly

maintenance to respondent Nos.2 to 4 at the rate of Rs.5,000/-

per month each as per the Award of the Lok Adalat. The petitioner

is ready to meet all the educational expenses of respondent Nos.2

to 4, but however, he does not want to keep the amount in the

hands of respondent No.2, inasmuch as, there is every possibility

of misusing the amount by respondent No.2. The Court below

erroneously enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to

respondent Nos.2 to 4. The impugned order suffers from illegality,

impropriety and irregularity, thus warranting interference by this

Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397

and 401 Cr.P.C. and ultimately prayed to allow the criminal

revision case as prayed for.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4

would submit that in view of the increase of standard of living, the

Court below rightly enhanced the maintenance payable to

respondent No.2. The petitioner, being a Government employee

working as MEO, is gainfully employed and as such directing him

to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance to

respondent No.2 cannot be faulted. Respondent No.2 has no

means to maintain herself and her children i.e., respondent Nos.3

and 4. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court

below rightly enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to

respondent No.2 without enhancing the monthly maintenance to

respondent Nos.3 and 4. The order under challenge does not suffer

from illegality or irregularity and ultimately prayed to sustain the

order under challenge and dismiss the criminal revision case.

8. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises

for determination in this criminal revision case, is as follows:

"Whether the order dated 10.06.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2014 in M.C.No.12 of 2010 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam, suffers from illegality, impropriety or irregularity,

so as to interfere with the same in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.?"

POINT:

9. Admittedly, respondent No.2 herein is the legally wedded

wife of the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are their

legitimate children. There are allegations and counter allegations

with regard to the marital disputes between the parties and the

respondent No.2 filed criminal case against the petitioner for the

offence under Section 498-A of IPC and also the subject

Maintenance Case. In the subject Maintenance Case, the

petitioner agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the respondent Nos.2

to 4 herein for which respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein agreed to

receive the same and accordingly, the criminal case was

withdrawn. Subsequently, respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed the subject

Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2014 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking

enhancement of maintenance to respondent No.2 @ Rs.10,000/-

per month and respondent Nos.3 and 4 @ Rs.8,000/- per month

each. The core contention of the petitioner herein before the Court

below was since the subject M.C.No.12 of 2010 was compromised

before the Lok Adalat in LAC No.1001 of 2010 wherein the

petitioner agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the respondent Nos.2

to 4 and which was agreed by them, now the respondent Nos.2 to

4 cannot contend that due to increase of cost of living, an amount

of Rs.5,000/- each being paid by the petitioner herein is not

sufficient to meet their expenses. Admittedly, respondent Nos.3

and 4, i.e, the minor sons are residing with the respondent

No.2/wife. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to relieve

destitution and beggary and with that end, to enforce the marital

duty of a person whose action produce such a situation creating

social problems and vices leading to an unjust social order.

Further, Section 127 Cr.P.C. mandates that on proof of a change in

the circumstances of any person receiving monthly maintenance

granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate may make such

alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit. In the instant case, it

is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is

gainfully employed and is able to maintain herself and respondent

Nos.3 and 4. The Lok Adalat Award has been passed on

09.09.2010. Adverting to the same, the Court below held as

follows:

"By that time, the age of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is 4 years and 1 year respectively. Now the present petition is filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are attending school studies and as such there are

changed circumstances and there is hike in the cost of living and petitioners could not get their daily needs and educational expenses of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 at Rs.5,000/- which was granted by way of Lok-Adalat Award."

The Court below further held that there is hike in cost of

living from 2010 to 2018; respondent Nos.3 and 4 are aged about

four years and one year respectively by the time of passing of the

Award; now their age is about 17 and 14 years respectively. In

such circumstances, the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month each

granted under the Award is not sufficient to meet the expenses of

respondent Nos.2 to 4; in such circumstances, as per Ex.P1 salary

statement, the petitioner is drawing Rs.58,083/- per month; as

such, the petitioner is drawing sufficient salary to meet the living

expenses of respondent Nos.2 to 4; in such circumstances, it is a

fit case to enhance the maintenance to the respondent No.2 to

Rs.10,000/- and respondent Nos.3 and 4 to Rs.5,000/- per month

each from the date of filing of this petition.

10. The Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the

Court below, which are based on sound reasoning. In view of the

facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to

interfere with the order under challenge. Further, it is well settled

law that revisional Court has to confine itself to the legality and

propriety of the findings of the subordinate Court as to whether

the subordinate Court acted within its jurisdiction. The revisional

Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded

by the learned Judge and substitute its own findings. Sections 397

and 401 of Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on the revisional

Court to the extent of satisfying about the legality, propriety or

regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower Court and not

to act like appellate Court for other purposes including the

recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence.

In the instant case, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or

irregularity in the judgment under challenge, so as to interfere

with the same by exercising revisional jurisdiction under Sections

397 and 401 Cr.P.C. None of the contentions raised on behalf of

the petitioner merit consideration. The criminal revision case is

devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

confirming the order, dated 10.06.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.111

of 2014 in M.C.No.12 of 2010 by the learned Judge, Family Court-

cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

Date: 13.03.2023 ssp