APHC010435632023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 745 OF 2023 Between: 1. CHALLA RAMA PRASAD RAO @ RAMAPRASAD, S/o. Late Krishnamurty, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Employee in Sachivalayam working at Rajam, residing at Plot No.7, Nehru nagar, ML Nagar, Srikakulam Town and District. ...Petitioner AND 1. CHALLA VADANA MADHURI, W/o.Challa Rama Prasadarao @Ramprasad, D/o.Vadana Ramarao, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Household duties, R/o.Door No.13-7-4/2 LIG, New H.No.24, Near Oxford public School, APHB colony, Srikakulam town and District, Aadhar No.249348349336. 2. Challa Visruthi, , D/o.Challa Rama Prasadarao, Hindu, aged about 8 years, rest-do-, Aadhar No.662057984220, being minor represented by her naturl guardian/mother/next friend Challa @Vadana Madhuri i.e. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi ...Respondents Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC 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 order dated 20-07-2023 passed in F.C.M.C.NO.14/2021 on the file of the Judge, Family court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, in the interest of justice and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 may be pleased to suspend the order dated 20-07-2023 passed in F.C.M.C.N0.14/2021 on the file of the Judge, Family court-cum-III Additional District Counsel for the Petitioner: SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA Counsel for the Respondents: K.S.G. PADMAVATHI Counsel for the Respondents:PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the Petitioner, aggrieved by the Order dated 20.07.2023 passed in FCMCNo.14 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The brief facts of the case are that i) The marriage of the Petitioner and respondent No.1 took place on 12.10.2011 at Srikakulam. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the Petitioner towards dowry besides 5 tolas of gold ornaments and Rs.30,000/- towards saree saman and incurred marriage expenses by the parents of the respondent No.1. After the marriage, the couple lived together for some. Respondent No.2 is their daughter. It is alleged that the Petitioner addicted to vices and used to harass the respondent No.1 both physically and mentally for bringing additional dowry. Petitioner/husband beat the respondent No.1 indiscriminately by touching her character. ii) The harassment of the Petitioner reached to a peak stage and he necked her out from the house several times for want of additional dowry. Several mediations were done between the parties but in vain. During last week of January, 2021, taking advantage of the Covid-19 situation, the petitioner and his family members beat the respondent No.1 with hands and kicked her with 3 legs and necked her out from the house for bringing additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- otherwise, the petitioner would perform second marriage. iii) The Petitioner neglected her wilfully and wantonly without any reason. The Petitioner is a Government Employee working in Sachivalayam and earning good salary. Apart from that, he is having movable and immovable properties and getting rents nearly about Rs.50,000/- per month. iv) The Respondent No.1 is a house wife and she has no earning capacity and she along with her daughter respondent No.2 are depending on her parents. She filed FCMC No.14 of 2021 seeking monthly maintenance to maintain herself and respondent No.2. v) The Petitioner being respondent in FCMC No.14 of 2021 filed counter denying all the material aspects except the marital relationship between the parties and the respondent No.2 is their daughter. He stated that both the families are close relatives and without taking any amount, their marriage was performed. Respondent No.2 born on 08.09.2012. Even then, there is no change in the attitude of the respondent No.2 and she always humiliates the petitioner and his family members for one reason or the other. At the time of joining respondent No.2 in the school, she picked up quarrel stating that respondent No.2 should be admitted at the school nearer to her parents house situated at APHB Colony Srikakulam. Finally, petitioner obeyed the words of the respondent No.1 and joined respondent No.2 in Oxford Public School APHB Colony. vi) There is a complete change in the attitude of the Respondent No.1 and she is the person who used to harass him, his widowed mother and his 4 brother. In the second week of June, 2016, respondent No.1 left the company of the Petitioner and since then, she is residing at her parents house at Srikakulam along with the respondent No.2 /daughter. The attempts made for reunion of the couple are in vain. v) The Petitioner is working as Ward Welfare Secretary in Ward Sachivalayam, Rajam and getting Rs.15,000/- per month towards salary and his services were not yet regularised. His mother is aged about 64 years and serious chronic diabetic patient. He is residing in the joint family property and the respondent No.1 herself deserted the petitioner and she did not approach the Court with clean hands and she is not entitled for maintenance. vi) The learned Judge, Family Court recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on behalf of the respondent No.1/wife besides marking documents Exs.P1 to P3 and on behalf of Petitioner, R.W.1 was examined and no document is marked. vii) Considering the submissions made by the parties coupled with the factual matrix of the case, the learned Judge, Family Court allowed FCMC and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to the respondent No.1 /wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2/daughter from the date of petition and the petitioner is directed to pay the maintenance amount on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner/husband preferred the present criminal revision case on the ground that the order impugned is not sustainable in law. 5 3. Heard Sri Satheesh Kumar Eerla, learned counsel for the Petitioner/husband and Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3/State. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the order of the Trial Court is illegal, improper and contrary to law. Further, the Trial Court granted maintenance without looking into the material aspects of the matter that the petitioner has to look after his aged mother and without any material to show that the petitioner is having financial capacity to pay maintenance, the Trial Court granted monthly maintenance which is highly exorbitant. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. The material on record would reveal that undisputedly, the parties are the legally wedded couple and respondent No.2 is their daughter. The version of the petitioner is that at the time of marriage, the petitioner is an Advocate and respondent No.1 deserted him stating that petitioner is not getting any handsome salary. After coming to know that the petitioner got job in Sachivalayam, the respondent No.1 rushed to file the case after case against the Petitioner with a view to extort money from the Petitioner. In view of the close relationship between the families, petitioner did not take any dowry from the parents of the respondent No.1. Since, June, 2016, the respondent No.1 deserted the petitioner is living with her parents and that she is not entitled for any maintenance amount. 6 7. The version of P.W.1/wife is supported by P.Ws.2 and 3 who are her mother and the elder respectively. On behalf of the wife, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Their version is that after giving birth to a female child/respondent No.2, the petitioner started harassing the respondent No.1 on one pretext or other and that he used to beat her for bringing additional dowry and ill-treated her and that respondent No.1 lodged a report to the women Police Station, Srikakulam. 8. The version of R.w.1/husband is that at the time of compromise of the cases, P.W.1 demanded money for settlement and to settle the property in their favour. If that be so, it clinches the evidence of P.W.1 that R.W.1 is having properties. He himself admitted that he is working in Sachivalayam and getting salary of Rs.25,000/- per month and his contention is that he is getting meagre salary and he could not pay the maintenance. During cross-examination, R.W.1 denied that suggestion that he filed a suit in OS No.434 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for grant of permanent injunction claiming the suit property as his own property. R.W.1’s evidence evaluates that he completely neglected the respondents to maintain them. 9. The fact remains that Respondent No.2/daughter is a school going child and she needs money for her education apart from other expenses like medical, nutrition etc., The respondent No.1/wife is not an employee and she has no independent income either to maintain herself or the daughter. No contra evidence placed on record by the Petitioner/husband. Being head of the family, the husband is having bounden duty to maintain family. 7 10. The Family Courts have been established for adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure and to deal with family disputes in a speedy and expeditious manner. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125, CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125, Cr.P.C, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no 8 acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance. 11. In the instant case, the evidence of the witnesses reveals that P.W.1 subjected to cruelty in the hands of R.w.1 and his family members . After considering the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1/ wife and respondent No.2/daughter are entitled for the monthly maintenance and accordingly, granted maintenance as stated supra. 12. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court need not re- appreciate the entire evidence and while deciding revision case, this Court has to see whether any perversity is found in appreciating the evidence, whereas in this case, this Court does not find any perversity in the decision made by the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no merit in the revision, and there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Court below. For the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 04.02.2026 9 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No. 745 of 2023 04.02.2026 Mjl /*