Namburu Sriharirao vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2928 Tel

                                 1



  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1321 OF 2014

O R D E R:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. None

appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

02. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397

and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.,)

against the Order dated 24.03.2014 passed in M.C.No.18 of 2011

by the learned Judge, Family Court, Khammam (for short 'trial

Court').

03. The brief facts of the case are that: The Respondent

No.2 is the wife of the petitioner whose marriage was performed

on 16.04.2000 and they were blessed with a boy who is

respondent No.3 herein. Thereafter, the petitioner started

harassing her physically and mentally stating that she is not

beautiful and black in complexion and for additional dowry. On

account of these disputes, in the month of June, 2007 she left

the company of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 has filed

maintenance case stating that she has no source of income and

sought for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each.

04. The petitioner opposed the said maintenance case

stating that the respondent No.1 left the house company of the

petitioner and she did not return back and she is working as

Teacher and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and prayed to

dismiss the petition.

05. The trial Court vide Order dated 24.03.2014 passed in

M.C.No.18 of 2011, after conducting full-fledged trail and hearing

arguments of both sides, granted an amount of Rs.4,000/- and

Rs.3,000/- per month respectively towards maintenance to

respondent No.2 and 3.

06. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State would submit that maintenance amount

awarded to the unofficial respondents is proper and that there

are no grounds to interfere with the Order of the trial Court and

prayed to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.

07. The scope of the revision against the Orders passed by

the trial Court in maintenance case, has been dealt with

extensively by the Honourable Apex Court in a case between Pyla

Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu and

another 1 wherein it is held that:

"9. In fact, we also find sufficient substance in the plea that the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction ought not to have entered into a scrutiny of the finding recorded by the Magistrate that the appellant was a married wife of the respondent, before allowing an application determining maintenance as it is well- settled that the revisional court can interfere only if there is any illegality in the order or there is any material irregularity in the procedure or there is an error of jurisdiction. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into re-appreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mondal vs. State of Jharkhand (2006 (1) AIR Jhar. R. 153) that in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the revisional court is very limited. The revisional court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate.

10. In revision against the maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., the revisional court has no power to re-assess evidence and substitute its own findings. Under revisional jurisdiction, the questions whether the applicant is a married wife, the children are legitimate / illegitimate, being pre-eminently questions of fact, cannot be reopened and the revisional court cannot substitute its own views. The High Court, therefore, is not required in revision to interfere with the positive finding in favour of the marriage and patronage of a child. But where finding is a negative one, the High Court would entertain the revision, re-evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion whether the findings or conclusions reached by the Magistrate are legally sustainable or not as negative finding has evil consequences on the life of both child and the woman. This was the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh (Smt.) vs. Naresh Pal (1998) 8

Judgment dated 09.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.219 of 2007 of Hon'ble Apex Court

SCC 447 5), as also in the case of Parvathy Rani Sahu vs. Bishnu Sahu (2002) 10 SCC 510. Thus, the ratio decidendi which emerges out of a catena of authorities on the efficacy and value of the order passed by the Magistrate while determining maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is that it should not be disturbed while exercising revisional jurisdiction."

08. This Court has gone through the entire material on

record including the oral evidence of PW1, PW2 and RW1. The

trial Court observed that there is no dispute with regard to the

relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 as

husband and wife. The maintenance case was filed in the year

2011 and awarded was passed in the year 2014, keeping in view

of cost of living of 2011. Considering the cost of living present

day, the unofficial respondents may not be able to sustain with

the meager amount of maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- and

Rs.3,000/- respectively for their food, shelter, clothing, medical

expenses, education expenses etc.,. In case, if respondent No.2 is

maintaining herself, then the revision petitioner is expected to

take steps for filing an appropriate application in the appropriate

forum. On the other hand, there is no record to show that

respondent No.2 has filed any enhancement petition or not.

09. Considering the above rationale the Revisional Court

cannot reappreciate the evidence recorded by the trial Court to

upset the finding in respect of quantum of amount and the very

decision that revision petitioner has to pay the monthly

maintenance as awarded.

10. On perusal of the entire material on record, this Court

finds that there is no irregularity or illegality and thereby it is not

a case where miscarriage of justice has been done. As long as

there is no irregularity, or illegality in the finding of the trial

Court as to whether it was justified in granting the quantum of

amount and other questions cannot be taken up and heard and

finding in the Revision Case.

11. In view of the above discussion, the findings of the

trial Court, cannot be interfered with and this Criminal Revision

Case is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications in this

matter, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 06-OCT-2023 KHRM