Telangana High Court
Yalagandula Srinivas, Karimnagar., vs Y.Sujana , Padma, Karimnagar. Rep Pp And ... on 25 June, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.166 OF 2014
O R D E R:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 18.11.2013 in Criminal Revision Petition No.47
of 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge (FTC), at Karimnagar (for short, "the appellate
Court").
2. No representation either side.
3. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on
05.09.2023 and 04.06.2023. Even today, there is no
representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this Court is
inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bani Singh and others
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, wherein it was categorically held
that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for
non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 is the
legally wedded wife of the petitioner and they were blessed with
respondent No.2 during their wedlock. It is stated that at the time
(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720
of marriage, the parents of respondent No.1 presented an amount
of Rs.1,50,000/- cash and other house hold articles. Later, the
petitioner was selected as Government Teacher. Respondent No.1
stated that after the petitioner was selected as Teacher, he
started harassing her mentally and physically for want of
additional dowry. When she failed to bring dowry, the petitioner
drove her away from the house and neglected to maintain her
and her child. As respondent No.1 possessed no means of living
she filed maintenance case seeking maintenance from the
petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at
Vemulawada (for short, "the trial Court") vide order dated
02.03.2012 in M.C.No.02 of 2012 granted an amount of
Rs.2,000/- and 1,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent
Nos.1 and 2 respectively, from the date of the order.
5. It is further stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred a
Revision before the appellate Court seeking enhancement of
maintenance amount. The appellate Court vide impugned order
enhanced the maintenance to Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per
month from Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month as
maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, and
directed the petitioner herein to pay the said amount on or before
10th of each month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred the present Revision.
6. As per the grounds raised in the Revision, the petitioner
contended that respondent No.1 was earning an amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month by doing beedi rolling and tailoring work
and she possessed sufficient money for her living. The petitioner
is under an obligation to maintain his old aged parents, sister,
brother and three children of his deceased sister. Therefore, the
petitioner submitted that the quantum of maintenance granted to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 is huge, excessive and he, seeks to set
aside the impugned order.
7. On behalf of the unofficial respondent Nos.1 and 2, the trial
Court examined respondent No.1 as PW1 and marked Ex P1. On
behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, none were examined and no
document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and
documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the petitioner
was a school Teacher and his salary was about Rs.24,000/- per
month. Though the petitioner stated that he is under an
obligation to maintain his parents, brother, sister etc., but the
learned Judge of the trial Court had opined that an additional
responsibility cannot relieve him from maintaining his own wife
and children and thus, rendered the order dated 02.03.2012 in
M.C.No.02 of 2012.
8. Since, the monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs.22,987/-,
the appellate Court relying upon the decision passed in
K.Raghavulu Vs. K. Devathamma 2, observed that maintenance
upto 1/5th of the income of the spouse can be granted to the wife
and found it just and reasonable to enhance the maintenance
amount payable to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to Rs.3,000/- and
Rs.2,000/- respectively vide impugned order.
9. This Court vide order dated 04.02.2014 granted interim
stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order
pending disposal of the Revision on condition that the petitioner
shall pay interim maintenance at half of the amount awarded by
the appellate Court payable on or before 15th of every month
commencing from 15th February, 2014 and arrears calculated at
the same rate within four weeks from that day. Till date nothing
is available on record to show that the order passed by this Court
is being complied with.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the opinion that the appellate Court rightly passed the
1975 (2) APLJ Page 17
impugned order upon taking into consideration the income of the
petitioner and the living standards of the people in the present
day society. Challenging such a meager amount is not
permissible at this stage as the costs of living standards of the
people have escalated to a larger extent. Hence, I find no reason
to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court and the
Revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 25.06.2024
ESP
