APHC010645642016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1294/2016 Between: Vennam Sam Anil Kumar, Hyd., ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap Rep Pp And Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: G RONALD RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T B B KRISHNA MOHAN 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Assailing the Order dated 27.04.2016 in M.C.No.25 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, 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 2nd respondent/wife are that: i). The marriage of the 2nd respondent and revision petitioner was solemnized on 27.01.2010 as per Christian rites and customs. At the time of marriage, parents of the 2nd respondent gave Rs.12,50,000/- towards dowry apart from gold ornaments. On the day of nuptials i.e., on 27.01.2010, the petitioner/husband questioned her that with how many persons she is having sexual intimacy and with how many persons she participated in the sex while she was staying in the Ameerpeta Hostel at Hyderabad, thereby, subjected her mental agony on the first day itself. ii). On 29.01.2010, he demanded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards additional dowry, Rs.10,00,000/- towards car and sare saman consisting of steel boxes as they have to distribute the same to the relatives and friends. He also warned her that unless she secure job, bring additional dowry, she will not be allowed into the matrimonial home. iii). In view of the harassment made by him, she left the matrimonial home and residing along with her parents. 3 Then, on 14.04.2010, 18.07.2010, 18.11.2010 and 16.01.2010, petitioner and his family members highhandedly came to her parents’ house and threatened them with dire consequences. She filed a private complaint against him and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. iv). She is unable to maintain herself. Her father died on 08.02.2012. Though he has sufficient means, neglected her. Thereby, the revision petitioner/husband is bound to maintain her by paying monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition was taken on file and numbered as M.C.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. 4. The petitioner/husband filed counter and denied the allegations made by the 2nd respondent/wife, while admitting the relationship between the parties and pleaded that: i). He did not take any dowry from her parents. Her father met the marriage expenses and gave Rs.2,50,000/- for arranging lunch. Her parents also 4 presented gold worth of Rs.2,50,000/- to her. She participated in the conjugal society with him reluctantly. She used to talk with J.Ravi Kumar over phone continuously. She refused and abused him by stating that he is not a suitable match to her. ii). On 09.02.2010, the said J. Ravi Kumar, threatened him to file a rape against him by the petitioner/wife and he took her to his house at Mehdipatnam without any information to him. Then, on the advice of her father, she came to him. From 10.02.2010 to 12.02.2010 she did not participate conjugal life with him and also indulged in talking with said J.Ravi Kumar over phone. She continued same kind of attitude towards him. iii). Lastly, on 27.02.2010, she left the matrimonial home on the pretext of attending interview and never returned. She is residing in the house of said J.Ravi Kumar and leading adulterous life. She subjected him to cruelty by denying conjugal life with him. Thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. During enquiry, the wife herself examined as P.W.1 and got examined their distinct relative as P.W.2. On behalf of the husband, himself was examined as R.W.1 and he got examined 5 his father as R.W.2. No documentary evidence was adduced on either side. 6. After full-fledged enquiry, learned Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, vide order dated 27.04.2016, granted monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd respondent/wife from the date of order. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband preferred present criminal revision case. 8. Heard Miss.Samantha, learned counsel representing Sri G.Ronald Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband. 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 No.2, since she herself deserted him; that the revision petitioner is an unemployed and incapable of providing maintenance to her; that the father of the petitioner, who is age old person, is depending on him; that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the said facts, thereby, prays to consider the present revision. 6 11. 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 and wife. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/husband as well respondent No.2/wife were residing separately. Furthermore, the 2nd respondent did not prefer any appeal against the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 12. 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 both parties and distinct relative. They reiterated the pleadings in their testimonies. The testimony of P.W.2 is fully corroborated to the testimony of P.W.1. It is the categorical case of the wife that though he has sufficient means, he neglected her, thereby she is entitled for maintenance. 13. On the other hand, it is the case of the revision petitioner the 2nd respondent is having illicit intimacy with one Ravi Kumar and she herself deserted him. But the testimony of R.Ws.1 and 2 do not establish the ground of adultery. It is settled proposition of the law that the husband has duty to take care of her maintenance while marital relationship is existing. Though, the wife failed to establish any cruelty by the husband, 7 he is bound to pay maintenance as a dutiful husband. Even the divorced wife is entitled for maintenance until she remarried. Furthermore, it is categorical admission made by R.W.1 during cross examination that he has not filed any documents to shows that she is working and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and also having properties at Rajahmundry. More so, he is working in Sun Corp. at Hyderabad as admitted by him. The Trial Court after thorough appreciation of the matter came to such right conclusion. 14. 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. By considering the educational qualifications of the petitioner, facts and circumstance, following the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Trial Court rightly granted monthly maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd respondent/wife from the date of order, which requires no interference by this Court. 15. 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. 8 16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 27.04.2016 in M.C.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 21.02.2025 Krs 9 152 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1294 of 2016 DATE: 21.02.2025 Krs