APHC010216202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1122 OF 2025 Between: 1. CHITTAMURU ANUSHA @ OZILI ANUSHA, a W/o. Chittamuru Sriharsha, aged 35 years, Homemaker, R/at D.No.27-1-171, Near Adithya Degree College, Adithya Nagar, Nellore City-524 002 ...Petitioner AND 1. CHITTAMURU SRIHARSHA, S/o. Narasa Reddy, aged 36 years. Private Employee, R/at D.No 26-1-154, Gayathri Nagar, Dargamitta, Nellore City. (Note: The petitioner is unable to get the residential particulars of the 1st respondent Residing at London. Thus, the above address is mentioned) and 2. Chittamuru Narasa Reddy, S/o. Late Dasaradharami Reddy, aged 59 years. Agriculturist, R/at D.No.26-1-154, Gayathri Nagar Dargamitta, Nellore City. ...Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the above-named petitioner begs to present the above Revision Petition in so far as aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.151 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.60 of 2024 Dated 24-01-2025 on the file of the Family Court-Cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore in not awarding the interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-. Counsel for the Petitioner: P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: N.RUPA KUMAR SRK, J CRP No.1122 of 2025 2 The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in IA No.151 of 2024 in FCOP No.60 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. 2. Revision Petitioner is wife of 1st respondent herein and 2nd respondent is father of 1st respondent. Petitioner filed FCOP No.60 of 2024, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984, to direct 1st respondent to take her to London to lead matrimonial life by obtaining spouse Visa for her from the concerned departments. In the said FCOP, she filed IA No.151 of 2024 seeking to direct 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month towards her monthly interim maintenance and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. 3. Petitioner states that her marriage with 1st respondent was performed on 12.12.2014 in GPR Kalyana Mandapam, Nellore as per Hindu rites and customs. 2nd respondent is father of 1st respondent. At the time of marriage, her parents presented cash of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondents and 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her in addition to silver and other household articles. Her mother also gifted vacant site of 25 Ankanams, situated at Venkatachalam village to her by executing a registered settlement deed bearing document No.4004/2014, dated 27.12.2014, towards Pasupukunkuma. After the marriage, SRK, J CRP No.1122 of 2025 3 they led marital life at Bangalore and London. She conceived in 2017, but due to stress and torture being meted out to her by the respondents, her pregnancy was aborted. Her husband purchased Flat No.406, Block-A in Jingle Heights Apartments at Bangalore in 2018, by utilizing the dowry given by her parents and by availing home loan. Without intimating her, her husband went to London on securing a job in INFOSYS Company in May 2020. She came to know about the same through her friends. 1st respondent refused to answer her mails and calls. When she went to the house of 2nd respondent and asked him why 1st respondent was not responding to her mails and calls, he demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Though, 1st respondent went to London in the year 2021, he did not make any effort to get spouse Visa to her to take her to London to lead matrimonial life. She apprehends second marriage to her husband. 1st respondent is working as Software employee in London and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Further, the respondents are having high value of movable and immovable properties on their own and they are getting more than Rs.5,00,000/- per month therefrom. She is not doing any job and she is purely depending on the mercy of her parents, who are suffering from old age ailments and not in a position to maintain her. 4. 1st respondent filed counter affidavit admitting the marriage, but making certain allegations against the petitioner and her father. Except stating that the maintenance claimed by the petitioner is too excessive and the expenditure of the petitioner SRK, J CRP No.1122 of 2025 4 may be at Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month, he does not state anything. 5. The trial Court, on hearing both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, partly allowed the IA by directing 1st respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of petition till disposal of the main case and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation by holding that though 1st respondent is working in London and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month, he is having obligation towards his old aged father and grandmother. The trial Court further held that as the petitioner pursued M.Tech, she is supposed to work and earn money; she did not file any proof of expenses and her father is a pensioner and also a practicing Advocate. Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court, the petitioner filed the present Revision Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 1st respondent is working as Software Engineer in London and getting salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month and the documents filed by the petitioner clearly show the income of 1st respondent from different sources. He submits that the trial Court erred in granting very meager amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards interim maintenance of the petitioner on the ground that 1st respondent is having obligations. He further submits that the petitioner is not employed and not having any source of income and she is purely depending on her old aged parents and the amount granted by SRK, J CRP No.1122 of 2025 5 the trial Court is not at all sufficient for her maintenance in the present day cost of living. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the trial Court, on consideration of the entire material on record, has rightly awarded monthly interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. 8. Heard. Perused the record. 9. Admittedly, petitioner and 1st respondent are wife and husband. According to the petitioner, she conceived in 2017, but due to stress and torture being meted out to her by the respondents, her pregnancy was aborted. They are not having any children. The contention of the petitioner is that though 1st respondent went to London in the year 2021, he did not make any effort to get spouse Visa to her to take her to London to lead matrimonial life and neglected to maintain her and since then she is living with her parents. Hence, she filed FCOP No.60 of 2024 seeking to direct 1st respondent to take her to London to lead matrimonial life by obtaining spouse Visa for her from the departments concerned. In the said FCOP, she filed IA No.151 of 2024 seeking to direct 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month towards her monthly interim maintenance and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses, as she has no source of income and she is purely depending on her age old parents. The trial Court, by holding that the petitioner did not file any proof of SRK, J CRP No.1122 of 2025 6 expenses and as she has pursued M.Tech, she is supposed to work and earn money and that 1st respondent has obligations to maintain his father and grandmother, granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner towards her interim maintenance from the date of petition till disposal of the main case and also directed 1st respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner towards costs of litigation. Having not satisfied with the same, the petitioner herein filed the present CRP. 10. 1st respondent, being the husband, is obligated to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial constraints so long as he is capable of earning. It is not the case of 1st respondent that he is incapable of earning. 1st respondent is stated to be working as Software Engineer in London and earning salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. 11. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither SRK, J CRP No.1122 of 2025 7 arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C., can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., unless disqualified, is an absolute right. 12. Section 125 Cr.P.C., is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of SRK, J CRP No.1122 of 2025 8 the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints or he has to maintain other dependents, as long as he is capable of earning. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. However, the interim maintenance should be just and reasonable. 13. Learned Family Court Judge, without taking the said aspects into consideration, has awarded very meager amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner towards her interim maintenance, which is not at all sufficient in the present day cost of living, ignoring the fact that 1st respondent is working as Software Engineer in London and earning salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the financial status of 1st respondent, the interim maintenance granted to the petitioner by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, vide order dated 24.01.2025 passed in IA No.151 of 2024 in FCOP No.60 of 2024, is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.12,500/- per month. Accordingly, 1st respondent is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.12,500/- (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred only) per month to the petitioner. The other conditions imposed by the learned Family Court Judge shall remain unaltered. SRK, J CRP No.1122 of 2025 9 15. With the above said modification, the CRP is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:04.09.2025 Nsr SRK, J CRP No.1122 of 2025 10 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1122 of 2025 Date:04.09.2025 Nsr SRK, J CRP No.1122 of 2025 11