APHC010541692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3017/2024 Between: Banda Vikramadithya ...PETITIONER AND Dhupam Mahalakshmi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH SRINIVASA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following Order: The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.166 of 2023 by the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short “trial Court”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded husband of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 25.07.2020 2 as per Hindu Religious customs at petitioner’s residence and all marriage expenses were borne by the petitioner’s family. The respondent has a history of Schizophrenia and her family concealed the same at the time of the marriage. The respondent was undergoing treatment for this condition including medication and the concealment of her medical condition constitutes fraud, rendering the marriage void under the law. When the petitioner came to know her mental condition, he took the respondent for consultations in Kurnool and later in Hyderabad for advanced treatment. The respondent exhibited suicidal tendencies, violent behavior and uncontrollable actions, causing physical and emotional distress to the petitioner and his family. Hence, the petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.166 of 2023 on 07.08.2023, seeking the dissolution of the marriage. Further, the respondent is also diagnosed with obesity and Polycystic Ovarian Disease (PCOD) and has undergone tests that confirmed the presence of a tumour. The respondent’s mental and physical conditions have prevented marital cohabilitation and procreation, depriving the petitioner of the essence of married life. The petitioner is working as private employee as a GIS Planner at Cyient Limited, Hyderabad, earns a monthly salary of Rs.34,784 and the petitioner repaying loans incurred for marriage and the respondent’s medical expenses. While so, the trial Court granted an interim maintenance in I.A.No.2 of 2024, dated 25.10.2024 of Rs.10,000/- per 3 month to the respondent from the date of filing F.C.O.P.No.166 of 2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr.Ch.Srinivasa Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the petition, submits that, as M.C.No.32 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-First Class Judicial Magistrate, Guntakal is pending, the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law. He further submits that the respondent misled the trial Court by suppressing her diagnosis and ongoing treatment for Schizophrenia. The respondent’s deliberate non-disclosure of her medical condition, which significally impacts her mental competency, vitiates the marriage itself and undermines the validity of her claim for interim maintenance. He further submits that the trial Court failed to recognize that the marriage is void under law as it was solemnized under fraudulent of marriage, renders her unfit for marriage as per Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and invalidates her entitlement to maintenance. He further submits that the trial Court failed to consider the petitioner’s precarious financial condition and directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent is beyond all reasonableness and is impossible for him. He further submits that the trial 4 Court failed to consider that the respondent resides with her brother, who is a Government Employee, and is also supported by another brother engaged in business and hence, the respondent is in a far better financial position compared to the petitioner, who is solely responsible for his mother’s medical and living expenses. He further submits that the order of the trial Court imposes an onerous burden on the petitioner to clear arrears of interim maintenance within two months, despite the financial strain caused by debts incurred due to respondent’s concealed medical condition. He further submits that the trial Court ignored the petitioner’s considerable efforts and financial sacrifices to provide medical treatment to the respondent, which were made in good faith and in the hope of her recovery and these efforts were unappreciated, while the respondent continues to claim undue financial relief. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 and pass appropriate orders. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued for grant of any relief in the present civil revision petition, submits that, the respondent is unemployed, her father has passed away and her brother is working in Municipality. The petitioner, who is her husband, is legally bound to maintain her. The respondent resides in Guntakal town, which is 130 Kilometers from Kurnool. Therefore, the maintenance amount is necessary for 5 the respondent to pursue M.C.No.32 of 2023, as she has to travel all the way from Guntakal to attend. Hence, the trial Court has rightly granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent till disposal of the main case i.e., F.C.O.P.No.166 of 2023. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the civil revision petition. 6. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court observed that, the F.C.O.P., which was filed by the petitioner-husband and the M.C., filed by the respondent-wife are pending consideration. However, the trial Court rightly granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife for her travelling expenses. Hence, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly considered and granted interim maintenance. 7. Therefore, finding no merit in the present civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 21-02-2025 BMS