Dr.Mohammed Sohail, Medchal., vs Dr.Sharmila Nausheen, Hyd 3 Otrs, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1256 Tel

                                1                           RRN,J
                                                    Crl. RC.No.869 of 2016

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.869 OF 2016


JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 &

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aggrieved by the order

dated 31.12.2015 in M.C.No.162 of 2012 passed by the

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee

Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Addl. Family Court, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that; the 1st respondent is the

wife of the revision petitioner. The 1st respondent filed M.C No.

162 of 2012 seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each to herself

and to her two minor children. By an order dt.31.12.2015, the

Trial Court dismissed the M.C against the 1st respondent and

granted Rs.8,000/- per month to respondents No.2 and 3 i.e the

minor children, to be paid by the revision petitioner. Challenging

the said order, the revision petitioner/husband filed the present

revision.

3. Heard and perused the record. Though the matter is posted

for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondents.

                                  2                          RRN,J
                                                    Crl. RC.No.869 of 2016

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that

the order of the Trial Court is erroneous as it failed to observe

that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent

was performed fraudulently and further failed to observe that the

1st respondent has a sufficient source of income to take care of

her children. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision petition.

5. It is evident from the record that the petitioner resisted the

maintenance case before the Trial Court on the sole ground that

the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was

not out of his own will. The Trial Court on appreciation of the

evidence found that the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife

of the petitioner, meaning, that respondents No.2 and 3 are the

legitimate children of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The

Trial Court dismissed the claim against the 1st respondent/wife

and awarded monthly maintenance to the minor children. The

father of minor children is duty bound to maintain his children

and the Trial Court taking note of the fact that he was working

and earning salary, came to the conclusion that the minor

children are entitled to Rs.8,000/- per month. The Trial Court

was justified in passing the impugned order and the ground that

the 1st respondent has sufficient means and qualifications to earn 3 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.869 of 2016

and maintain her children is rejected. Therefore, this revision is

devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed and the order

dated 31.12.2015 in M.C.No.162 of 2012 passed by the Trial

Court is hereby confirmed. The revision petitioner is directed to

pay the arrears to respondents No.2 and 3, if any, within a period

of three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any

shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J

15th day of March, 2023 BDR