APHC010683342011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: Between: 1. PITTA LOKESH, S/O TRINATHRAO H.NO.F17, CJM COOLIE LANE, KOTHAPETA, CHINTHALAVALASA POST, BHIMILIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 1. PITTA SIRISHA CHINNAMMADU AND ANOTHERS, W/O P.LOEKSH, R/O C/O BODANI SRINIVASA GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE STATE OF AP REP BYITS, PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR AT HIGH COURT OF AP., HYDERABAD. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the orders of the Family court, Viskahapatnam in O. IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 2435 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal against the orders of Family court, Visakhapatnam in OP.No.310/2009 pass 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1881/2011 PITTA LOKESH, S/O TRINATHRAO H.NO.F17, CJM COOLIE LANE, KOTHAPETA, CHINTHALAVALASA POST, BHIMILIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND CHINNAMMADU AND ANOTHERS, W/O P.LOEKSH, R/O C/O BODANI SRINIVASA RAO YELLAPURVANI PALLEM, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. THE STATE OF AP REP BYITS, PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR AT HIGH COURT OF AP., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the orders of the Family .P.No.310/2009 dated 30.11.2010 and to pass 2011(CRLRCMP 2435 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal against the orders of Family court, Visakhapatnam in OP.No.310/2009 dated 30.11.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO PITTA LOKESH, S/O TRINATHRAO H.NO.F17, CJM COOLIE LANE, KOTHAPETA, CHINTHALAVALASA POST, BHIMILIPATNAM, ...PETITIONER CHINNAMMADU AND ANOTHERS, W/O P.LOEKSH, RAO YELLAPURVANI PALLEM, THE STATE OF AP REP BYITS, PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR AT HIGH ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the orders of the Family 2010 and to pass praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal against the orders of the dated 30.11.2010 and to 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 2810 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order of the Family Court, Viskahapatnam in O.P.No.310/2009, dated 30.11.2010, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Husband, assailing the Order dated 30.11.2010 in O.P.No.310 of 2009, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the Family Court’). By the said order, the Family Court allowed the petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner (wife), payable by the respondent (husband) from the date of the order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Family Court. 3. The brief facts of the petition are as follows: (a) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 25.04.2008. At the time of marriage, an amount of ₹2,00,000/- in cash and gold ornaments worth ₹50,000/- were presented. Additionally, the respondent was given ₹20,000/- for the purchase of a two-wheeler, and ₹50,000/- towards sare saman (household articles). After the marriage, the respondent started harassing the petitioner, demanding an additional dowry amount of ₹1,00,000/-. Ultimately, on 25.08.2008, the petitioner was allegedly 3 driven out of the matrimonial home by the respondent, along with his mother and sister. (b) Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice dated 30.09.2008 from the respondent, asking her to return and resume cohabitation. The petitioner, through a reply dated 27.11.2008, expressed her willingness to join the respondent. However, it is contended that no effort was made by the respondent thereafter to receive the petitioner back. (c) It is further stated that the respondent is engaged in real estate business and also earns approximately ₹10,000/- per month as a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP). The petitioner claims that she requires ₹5,000/- per month towards her maintenance, including expenses for separate residence and other necessities. 4. The respondent filed a counter admitting the marriage and the relationship between the petitioner and himself as husband and wife. However, he denied the allegations regarding dowry and other amounts allegedly given at the time of marriage, including the alleged demand of ₹1,00,000/- as additional dowry. He also denied the income attributed to him in the petition. The respondent further contended that the petitioner was consistently insisting him to reside at her parental home as an illatum son-in- law, which he refused. He stated that all his efforts to bring the petitioner back to the matrimonial home had failed. He also claimed that the petitioner is well educated, employed as a teacher at Sri Venkateswara Public School, Thatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam, and earning ₹6,000/- per month. 5. During the course of trial, on 23.11.2010, the petitioner filed her chief affidavit and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. As the respondent and his counsel were absent, the cross-examination of PW.1 was recorded as 'Nil', and the matter was posted to 28.11.2010 for the respondent’s evidence. However, on 25.11.2010, the respondent failed to appear, and no evidence was adduced on his behalf. 4 6. The Trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in part and awarded maintenance of ₹1,500/- per month to the petitioner, payable by the respondent from the date of the order. 7. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2010 in O.P.No.310 of 2009, the respondent/husband, filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 8. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner (husband) contends that there is no evidence showing that the respondent earns more than ₹10,000/- per month as an RMP doctor and from real estate. The learned Judge should have noted that on 30.09.2008, the respondent invited the petitioner (wife) to join him, and she replied on 27.11.2008 expressing willingness, yet she filed O.P. No. 310 of 2009 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. without making any effort to reunite. The petitioner’s claim for ₹5,000/- per month maintenance is excessive, and the learned Judge erred in awarding only ₹1,500/- without properly considering the husband’s capacity to pay. 9. Now, the points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the impugned order of the Family Court, awarding maintenance of ₹1,500/- per month to the petitioner from the date of the order, is legally sustainable? 2) Does the order passed by the Family Court warrant any interference? POINTS NO.1 AND 2: 10. It is undisputed that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The Family Court awarded her maintenance at the rate of ₹1,500/- per month. According to the respondent (husband), the petitioner's mother and brother came to his residence and took the petitioner to her parental home on 29.06.2008 in view of the observance of Ashadamasam. In contrast, the petitioner (wife) asserts that she was driven out of the matrimonial home by the respondent on 24.05.2008. Having no other recourse, she lodged a complaint with the Gopalapuram Police Station on 5 25.05.2008. Subsequently, mediation took place, following which she rejoined the respondent on 10.06.2008. However, she alleges that the respondent, along with his mother and sister, attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene on her. Ultimately, on 25.08.2008, she was forcibly evicted from the respondent’s residence. It is admitted that on 30.09.2008, the respondent issued a legal notice (Ex.A.3) requesting the petitioner to return and resume cohabitation. In response, the petitioner sent a reply notice (Ex.A.4) dated 27.11.2008. In his counter, the respondent claims that, out of love and affection towards the petitioner, he had been sending her a sum of ₹500/- through money orders even prior to the passing of the maintenance order. 11. The Family Court observed that the sole objection raised against the payment of maintenance to the wife was based on the ground that she is an educated woman, employed as a teacher at Sri Venkateswara Public School, Visakhapatnam, drawing a salary of ₹6,000/-. However, the respondent (husband) failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim regarding the petitioner’s earnings. Likewise, the petitioner did not submit any documentary proof of the respondent’s income, either as an RMP doctor or from his alleged real estate business. It is undisputed that the parties are living separately. Taking into account the respective living standards of the parties, the Family Court determined the maintenance amount to be ₹1,500/- per month 12. It is pertinent to refer that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a tool for social justice enacted to ensure that women and children are protected from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that the conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it means to secure the woman’s sustenance, along with that of the children, if any. The statutory provision entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities. 6 13. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena &Ors.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the underlying purpose as well as social context of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and observed as follows: “2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home forth e reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.” 14. The testimony of PW.1 stands uncontroverted and unchallenged as the respondent did not choose to cross examine her. It is significant to note that the respondent has not brought forth any material that could impeach the credibility of PW.1's testimony. Furthermore, the respondent has not entered into the witness box to present his version of events. He has not refuted the specific claims made by PW.1, particularly in relation to the financial position and his source of income. 15. In Indian Bank, Chittoor v. V.R. Venkataraman 2 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 1 (2015) 6 SCC 353 2 2003 SCC OnLine AP 1160 7 10. The Supreme Court has categorically stated in the aforesaid decision that presumption has to be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box to prove the case set up by him. Such a presumption has to be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act insofar as the 2nd Defendant is concerned. Hence, it is rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that presumption has to be drawn for the non-examination of the 2nd Defendant, and the version raised in her pleading has to be disbelieved. 16. In Iswar Bhai C. Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel vs Harihar Behera & Anr3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: Having not entered the witness box and not presented himself for cross- examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him based on principles contained in illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 17. Given these circumstances, this Court finds no cogent reason or legal justification to disbelieve the testimony of PW.1, especially concerning the financial position of the respondent. The absence of cross-examination on this material aspect, coupled with the failure of the respondent to rebut it, lends further credence and weight to PW.1’s version. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve her evidence. 18. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent (husband) that he is reportedly suffering from lung cancer. However, it is pertinent to note that the respondent has failed to produce or place any concrete or credible material evidence before this Court to substantiate the said claim. Mere assertion without accompanying documentary proof, such as medical reports, certificates from qualified medical practitioners, or any other corroborative evidence, cannot be accepted at face value. Even if, for the sake of argument, the Court were to assume the truth of the respondent’s medical condition based solely on the present claim of suffering from lung cancer, such a condition, by itself, does not warrant an alteration or revision of the order previously passed by the Family Court. The order concerning maintenance 3 AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1341 8 was passed after due consideration of all relevant factors. Therefore, if the respondent seeks alteration of maintenance amount due to subsequent change of circumstances, he is at liberty to approach the Family Court in accordance with the law and avail himself of appropriate remedies. It is neither just nor proper to entertain such contention, at this stage, in this proceeding, based on unsubstantiated medical claims. The proper course for the respondent is to approach the Family Court with the necessary evidence to seek alteration of the maintenance order. 19. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no compelling or justifiable reason for the petitioner to have chosen to live separately from her husband, especially given the short duration of the marital cohabitation. The marriage appears to have broken down within a brief period, yet the respondent has not offered any credible, convincing, or legally sustainable reason to explain or justify the petitioner’s separation from him. 20. In the absence of any substantial allegation or proof of misconduct, cruelty, or any other just cause attributed to the petitioner, the version put forth by the respondent appears unsubstantiated and lacking in merit. Consequently, this Court finds that the petitioner’s version to reside separately does not appear to be willful or without cause. 21. The respondent (husband) has failed to produce any material evidence or documentation before this Court to demonstrate that the petitioner possesses any independent source of income sufficient to sustain herself. The respondent has not placed any material suggesting that the petitioner is financially self-sufficient or otherwise capable of maintaining herself without his support. Furthermore, it is not the case of the respondent that he has initiated legal proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The absence of such a plea or petition indicates a lack of demonstrable effort on the part of the respondent to restore the matrimonial relationship or to bring the petitioner back to the matrimonial home. 9 22. Although the respondent has pleaded that he has no source of income, he chose not to enter the witness box to substantiate his claim, for reasons best known to him. In the absence of such evidence, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.1. 23. The Family Court rightly reached its conclusion, providing justifiable reasons after careful reading of the evidence of PW.1 in awarding maintenance. As the evidence of PW.1 is not disputed and the respondent has not come into the witness box in support of his case, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the version of PW.1 regarding the financial source of her husband. As such, this Court views that it cannot be said that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is on higher side. The revision petitioner’s request for interference lacks merit. A re-appreciation of the evidence reveals no misdirection or error by the Family Court. Accordingly, its findings cannot be disturbed. The impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted. Therefore, the criminal revision case is dismissed, and the order of the Family Court is confirmed. Accordingly, the points are answered. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons stated above, the Criminal Revision Case No.1881 of 2011 fails and is hereby dismissed. The Order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in O.P.No.310/2009, dated 30.11.2010, stands confirmed. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 12.09.2025 SAK 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1881 OF 2011 Dated: 11.09.2025 SAK