APHC010399582016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1398/2016 Between: Madasu Srinivasa Rao, Srikakulam Dt., ...PETITIONER AND Madasu Aruna Kumari Srikakulam 3 Otrs Rep Pp and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Assailing the Order dated 26.03.2016 in F.C.M.C.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Court at Srikakulam, the petitioner/respondent/husband filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2 2. The shorn of necessary facts leading to file the original petition as pleaded by the respondent/wife are that: i). The marriage of the 1st respondent and revision petitioner was solemnized on 11.03.1993 at Anjaneyapuram, Cheepurupalli in Vizianagaram District as per Hindu rites and caste custom. At the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, two gold rings and one gold chain to the respondent as well a wristwatch and cash of Rs.5,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanams. The marriage was consummated. Out of their wedlock, they blessed with two children. ii). Subsequently, the revision petitioner addicted to bad vices, also having illicit intimacy with one Ramanamma of Tekkali and he took away her gold ornaments. He beat her and did not take any care towards her and children. He also insisted her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and necked out her from the matrimonial home on 16.09.2012. Since then, she is residing at her parents’ house along with her children. ii). The revision petitioner is working as driver in A.P.S.R.T.C., Palakonda and getting Rs.40,000/- towards 3 salary. He is also having properties devolved in partition more than Rs.20,00,000/- and is capable to maintain the respondents. Thereby, the revision petitioner/husband is bound to maintain them by paying monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.7,500/- each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3/children. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition was taken on file and numbered as F.C.M.C.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Court at Srikakulam. 4. The petitioner/husband filed counter and denied the allegations made by the respondent/wife, while admitting the relationship between the parties and pleaded that: They lived happily in the joint family for three years and thereafter, the 1st respondent started harassment with a demand to go for rented house from the joint family. She suspected his character, abused him, and did not provide food to him. She encouraged their sons to beat him before public. She is having sufficient means to maintain herself along with children. Thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4 5. During enquiry, the wife herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 as well she got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. On behalf of the husband, himself examined as R.W.1 and he got examined his sister as R.W.2, but no documents were exhibited on his behalf. 6. After full-fledged enquiry, learned Judge, Family Court at Srikakulam, vide order dated 26.03.2016, granted monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the respondent/wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3/children from the date of order payable on or before 5th of every month. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband preferred present criminal revision case. 8. Heard Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and Sri T.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/wife and children. 9. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court?” 10. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that the Trial Court erroneously granted monthly maintenance to the respondent Nos.1 to 3; that the 1st 5 respondent herself deserted the petitioner, thereby, she is not entitled for any maintenance; that the respondent No.2 and 3 became majors, as such, the petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance to them; that he is earning very meager salary as driver and thereby, prays to consider the present revision. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the revision petitioner himself necked out the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from the matrimonial home and he harassed the respondent No.1 with a demand of additional dowry; that the Trial Court after appreciating the material on record rightly granted maintenance to the respondents, thereby, the present revision has no merits. 12. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties as husband, wife, and children. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/husband as well respondent No.1/wife residing separately and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are residing along with respondent No.1. Furthermore, the respondent did not prefer any appeal against the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 13. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondent herself deserted him without any reasonable cause 6 and thereby, she is not entitled to get any maintenance, which is not considered by the trial Court. 14. To prove her case, the respondent got examined herself before the trial Court as P.W.1 and well P.W.2, who had acquaintance with the family of the petitioner. They reiterated the pleadings in their testimonies. The testimony of P.W.2 is fully corroborated to the testimony of P.W.1. 15. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the 1st respondent harassed him with a demand to put up separate family from the joint family. To substantiate the said contention, nothing was placed on record by the revision petitioner and it is not the case of the revision petitioner that the same is sole cause for the disputes between him and 1st respondent and to reside separately. 16. On the other hand, it is the foremost case of the 1st respondent that the revision petitioner necked out her along with children from the matrimonial home with a demand of additional dowry, they are residing at her parents’ house and she has no means to survive. Even by considering the fact that the revision petitioner/husband and 1st respondent/wife are residing separately, the respondents/wife and children are entitled for maintenance. 7 17. Now, coming to the quantum of maintenance payable by the revision petitioner is concerned, it is settled that the revision petitioner being husband of the respondent/wife and able- bodied person bound to maintain her. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner is working as driver in R.T.C. On perusal of testimony of P.W.3-Deputy Superintendent, APSRTC coupled with Ex.P.3 salary particulars of petitioner for the month of February, 2016, he is getting gross salary of Rs.30,317/- and net salary of Rs.24,420/-. Moreover, even as per the testimony of revision petitioner before the Trial Court as R.W.1, he is getting monthly salary from Rs.17,000/- to Rs.18,000/- as driver in R.T.C. Thereby, it is categorical that the revision petitioner is having considerable amount of earnings to maintain the family. 18. Albeit the respondents/wife and children claimed monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.7,500/- each respectively, the Trial Court after considering the above facts and circumstances of the case rightly granted monthly maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3/sons, which requires no interference by this Court. 8 19. It is also contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 became majors, as such, they are not entitled for maintenance. In the absence of material placed on record to prove the actual age of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to say that they are attaining majority, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. More so, it is open for the revision petitioner to prove the said fact before the Trial Court to decline him to pay the maintenance to the respondent Nos.2 and 3/sons. 20. Having regarding to the above discussion, this Court has no reason to interfere with the well-articulated order passed by the Trial Court, thereby, the present revision has no merits and is liable for dismissal. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 26.03.2016 in F.C.M.C.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Court at Srikakulam. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 04.02.2025 Krs 9 429 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1398 of 2016 DATE: 04.02.2025 Krs