APHC010445152019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1375/2019 Between: KANDRU SOMARAJU @ SAMSON, S/O.LATE SRI K.PEDA YESUPADAM AGED 38 YEARS, R/O.DOOR NO.3-42 JALIPUDI POST, HARIJANA PETA ELURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND SMT KANDRU SUVARNARATNAM, W/O.SRI K.SOMARAJU AGED 34 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.26-2-29, TIMMARASU VEEDHI, ASHOKNAGAR ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH MASTER KANDRU RISHANTH, S/O. SRI K.SOMARAJU AGED 9 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.26-2-29, TIMMARASU VEEDHI, ASHOKNAGAR ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH BABY KANDRU NAMRATHA, D/O. SRI K.SOMARAJU AGED 7 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.26-2-29, TIMMARASU VEEDHI, ASHOKNAGAR ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH (RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REP.BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1SMT.K.SUVARNARATNAM) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedin support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toCriminal Revision questioning the Order and Decree in M.C.No.16/2017 dt.27-11-2019 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru Counsel for the Petitioner: TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short „Cr.P.C.‟) preferred by the Petitioner, aggrieved by the Order, dated 27.11.2019 passed in MC No.16 of 2017,on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. Brief facts of the case are thatthe marriage of the Petitioner herein and Respondent No.1 was performed on 19.11.2008 at RCM Church, Jalipudi, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District, as per Christian rites and caste customs. During the wedlock, they blessed with two children (respondents 2 and 3 herein). It is alleged that the Petitioner along with her elder brother and other family members used to harass the petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-.The Petitioner herein used to beat the Respondent No.1 under one pretext or other.It is alleged that thepetitioner is having illegal intimacy with a woman.In the absence of Respondent No.1, the petitioner along with his elder brother took her gold ornaments and her certificates.The Respondent No.1(wife) filed a maintenance case in MC No.16 of 2017 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to herself and Rs.5,0000/- each to the Respondents 2 and 3 (children). The Petitioner (husband) filed a counter inter alia contending that from the beginning of the marriage, respondent No.1 is adamant and arrogant nature towards him and at her instigation, he put up a separate family and that he looked after her wife and children well and that 3 there are no major disputes between them. Further, she used to go to her parents‟ house frequently. One day, Respondent No.1 took away the children from the house without the knowledge of the Petitioner and left his companyvoluntarily.The Petitioner(husband) filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in OP No.613 of 2017, on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru and the same is pending for adjudication by the date of filing of the maintenance case. Learned Judge, Family Court, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the petitioner neglected and refused the maintain the Respondents 1 to 3 intentionally in spite of the burden is on him to maintain the legally wedded wife and children and by order, dated 27.11.2019 granted monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent No.1(wife) and Rs.4,000/- each to Respondents 2 and 3 (children) from the date of the said order. Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Petitioner/husband. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Siva Sankara Rao Borra, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.4/State. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and there is wilful desertion on the part of the Respondent No.1/wife without there being any sufficient cause. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent No.1 is always suspecting the petitioner‟s 4 character and there is iota of proof thereof and she herself invented the story that petitioner had an affair without another women. Further,Respondent No.1 filed a domestic violence case for various reliefs vide DVC No.17 of 2018, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru, wherein, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 28.08.2019 allowed the DVC and directed the Petitioner (husband) to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- each to the Respondents 1 to 3 herein towards their monthly maintenance, which includes, food, clothing and separate accommodation at Eluru from the date of the said Order and apart from the said maintenance amount, the learned Judge, Family Court ordered monthly maintenance to the Respondents 1 to 3 herein, which is highly excessive, exorbitant and petitioner being a teacher and getting a meagre salary and he could not pay double maintenance amounts to the Respondents. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner filed OP No.613 of 2017 for restitution of conjugal rights and though he is ready and willing to take back the wife and children, Respondent No.1 is not ready to come back to the matrimonial home. Further, Petitioner herein is voluntarily paying Rs.4,000/- towards school feeof the children. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the learned Judge, Family Court appreciated the facts of the case in a right perspective as well as the financial capacity of the Petitioner and granted maintenance to the Respondents 1 to 3 and the impugned order warrants any interference. 5 Learned AssistantPublic Prosecutor would submit that having considered the case of the Respondents 1 to 3 as they have no source of income to maintain themselves, the Trial Court granted the quantum, which is not excessive. Considering the submissions made and as can be seen from the material on record would show that the petitioner and Respondent No.1 are legally wedded couple and Respondents 2 and 3 are their legitimate children. Due to the disputes between the couple, they are living separately and cases are filed by the Respondent No.1/wife under various statues. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in DVC No.17 of 2018, the learned Magistrate by Order, dated 28.08.2019 granted maintenance to the petitioners therein (wife and children) against the respondent No.1 therein, (husband). In addition to that, by impugned order, the learned Judge, Family Court, also granted monthly maintenance to the respondents 1 to 3, which is highly exorbitant and excessive. Answering the said aspect, it is to be noted that granting maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, would be in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. The legislative envisages grant of maintenance to the wife under various statutes. The Provision of maintenance would definitely fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with cases under this provision, drift in the approach from “adversarial” litigation to social context adjudication.It was 6 not the intention of the legislature that once an order is passed ineither of the maintenance proceedings, the order would debar re-adjudicationof the issue of maintenance in any other proceeding. The facts of the present case fully justify grant of maintenance both to the wife and the children. The evidence of the wife has been believed by the courts below in maintenance case as well as in DVC and according to this Court rightly so. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was performed on 19.11.2008 and it seems, the disputes were started between the couple after ten years of the marriage and they had a considerably long married life. From the circumstances of the case, it can safely be inferred that the Family Court and the Magistrate Court were fully justified in holding that the wife deserves to be granted maintenance under Section 25 of the Act. Therefore, the version of the Petitioner that order under revision is not sustainable in the eye of law is ruled out.The order of the trial Court in granting monthly maintenance to Respondents 1 and 3 is just and reasonable and there are no vitiating grounds to entertain this criminal revision case and the quantum cannot be said to be either excessive, as contended by the husband, or inadequate as contended by the wife and children, warranting interference of this Court in revisional jurisdiction. For the foregoing, this Criminal Revision case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The order dated Order dated 27.11.2019 passed in MC No.16 of 2017 on the file of the Judge, 7 Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru is hereby confirmed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 27.01.2026 8 HON‟BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No.1375of 2019 27.01.2026 Mjl /*