IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) –CUM-
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: NIDADAVOLE. Present: Sri G.Rama Krishna, Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) –CUM- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole. Tuesday, this the 28th day of January, 2025
M.C.No.1/2024
Between:-
Kallem Dhanalakshmi, w/o Ravikumar, Hindu, Female, 27 years, House wife, R/o Korumamidi village, Nidadavole Mandal, E.G.Dt.
...Petitioner.
A n d :
Kallem Ravikumar, S/o Peddiraju, Hindu, Male, 35 years, Private employee, Door No.7-33, R/o Korumamidi village, Nidadavole Mandal.
...Respondent.
This case coming on 20.01.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.N.V.Surya Prakash, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri P.V.Nagadev and Smt.U.M.L.S.Prasanna, Advocates for Respondent and upon hearing from both sides and having stood over the consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-
: : O R D E R : :
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under
Section 125(a)&(b) of Cr.P.C seeking to grant monthly maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner.
2. The brief contents of the petition are as follows:- 2.1) The petitioner is the wife of respondent and their marriage was an arranged one and it was solemnized at the parental house of petitioner at
Korumamidi village according to Hindu rites and caste customs and the parents of petitioner entrusted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent towards pasupukumkuma of the petitioner. The marriage was consummated and the petitioner joined with the respondent at his house in Korumamidi for marital life and during their wedlock with the respondent, the petitioner was blessed with two children i.e. Avinash born in 2008 and Kowsalya born in 2010.
2.2) The petitioner further submits that, the respondent and his parents and sister harassed the petitioner to get additional dowry from her parents. In the 2
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole year 2017 the petitioner went to Kuwait by borrowing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents, to earn money by working as a servant maid and earned a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and sent the said amount to the respondent through online.
After five years i.e. in the year 2022, she came back to Korumamidi village.
Since then the respondent began harassing the petitioner to give all the money that was earned by her at Kuwait and he used to come at late hours to the home that too in drunken state and used to beat the petitioner brutally for not giving the money. The petitioner asked the respondent to render account for the sum of
Rs.7,00,000/-, for that the respondent grew wild and on 31.07.2022, the respondent and his brother Kallem Ambedkar and one Paull and one Manisha, trespassed into the house of petitioner and break open her suit case, lifted
Rs.10,000/- cash, 12 grams of gold and also her other documents and other cards relating to Kuwait and beat her and dragged her and all of them outraged her modesty by pressing her chest with their legs. For which the petitioner filed a report before the police station against the respondent and also filed a petition for divorce against the respondent before the court at Kovvur and obtained exparte order in favour of petitioner on 31.03.2023.
2.3) The petitioner further submits that, she has no source of income for her maintenance and she has no properties of their own. The respondent is a private employee and he is having valuable movable and immovable properties of his own and his monthly income is Rs.70,000/- and he is capable of providing maintenance to the petitioner and he is willfully avoiding to look after the welfare of the petitioner. Hence the petition.
3.1) The respondent filed his counter denying the allegations in the petition, except the relationship with petitioner. He further submitted that, the respondent’s parents are converted in Christian religion since their predecessors. The marriage of petitioner and respondent was love marriage without acceptance of their parents according to Hindu caste custom at
Satyanaraya Swamy temple, China Kasi Revu, Nidadavole before the village elders. The respondent never demanded any dowry or additional dowry at any point of time. The petitioner has no affection with the children since 2017 when 3
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole she went abroad and moreover the respondent himself growing the children by giving education to them with his earnings and now they are aged 16 and 14.
Even after her arrival from abroad, she didn’t show any interest on the respondent and children and she intentionally and wantonly neglected the family and never intended to join with the respondent’s matrimonial house.
3.2) The respondent further submits that, the petitioner has also taken divorce from the respondent before the court. The children of the respondent are studying higher education and he has responsibility to settle their life in a good manner. The petitioner is an educated and she worked in abroad since 2017 and she got sufficient means to lead herself to her parents house. If the petitioner agree, the respondent ready to take her back in his marital home for the sake of his children. Hence the claim of maintenance is not maintainable as she is willfully neglected the respondent and their children. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
4. During course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioner, the petitioner by name
Kallem Dhanalakshmi herself examined as PW.1 and the father of petitioner by name S.Koteswara Rao examined as PW.2 and no documentary evidence is adduced on their behalf.
5. To disprove the case of petitioner, the respondent/ Kallem Ravi Kumar himself examined as RW.1, one E.Venkateswara Rao examined as RW.2, one
E.Musalayya examined as RW.3, one K.Dharmayya examined as RW.4, son of respondent by name K.Avinash examined as RW.5 and the daughter of respondent by name K.Kousalya examined as RW.6 and no documentary evidence is adduced on his behalf.
6. Heard the oral arguments for petitioner and for respondent written arguments filed.
7. Now the points for determination are :--
1)Whether the respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner?
2)Whether petitioner is entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent?
4
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole
3) To What relief?
POINT No.1 :--
8. By perusal of the evidence of petitioner and respondent witnesses, it is disclosing that even though the petitioner pleaded that her marriage was performed as arranged marriage with respondent, but by the evidence of RW.s 2 to 4 it is disclosing that the marriage of PW.1 and RW.1 is a love marriage and by the date of their marriage, they’re both side parents were following the
Christian community, but due to their love affair, their marriage was performed at
China Kasi Revu of Nidadavole as per Hindu Rites and customs. Therefore, the marriage between PW.1 and RW.1 is a love marriage performed as per Hindu rites and customs. Here, the contention of petitioner is that, they have presented dowry of Rs.1 lakhs to the respondent by the time of her marriage but the same is denied by respondent, but it is a case where this court has to determine whether petitioner can entitled to claim maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. only, as such this court has to confined to that extent only. Therefore, presenting of dowry and remaining allegations with regard to additional dowry as alleged by the petitioner will be decided by a competent court in a proper case.
9. It is admitted fact by either side that, the marriage of petitioner and respondent performed as love marriage, subsequently they blessed with two children i.e. RW.5 and RW.6. It is further admitted fact that prior to filing this petition itself, the petitioner herein obtained a divorce from the respondent from a competent court at Kovvur as exparte decree order in H.M.O.P.No.249/2022.
Therefore, it is clear that by the date of filing of this petition, the petitioner herein was already obtained divorce from the respondent herein by way of exparte decree. Here, as per the admission of both side the petitioner and the respondent were separated on 31-07-2022 and from then they are residing separately.
10. Here it is the contention of petitioner is that, after her marriage due to their family financial burdens with the consent of respondent she went to Kuwait to 5
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole work in the year of 2017 and came back to India in the year of 2022. During her working time at Kuwait for a period of 5 years, she sent an amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the respondent herein through online transfers, then after her arrival to India, she questioned to the respondent about the said amount send by her and its account particulars, then respondent demanded her to give back the money stating she was concealed some of the amounts which was get by her during her work at Kuwait, then on 31.07.2022 there was a galata occurred as the respondent, his brother and another 2 persons of his family went to the petitioner parents house, where the petitioner and respondent last reside and took away of her passport, her working permit ID card and cash of Rs.10,000/- and her gold ornaments, on that, the petitioner filed a case before Samisragudem P.S under
Sec.498-A, 448, 384 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act which is pending on the file of this court vide C.C.No.558/2022, as such she filed present petition since respondent neglected to maintain her.
11. But whereas the evidence of the RW1 disclosing that, the petitioner came to India in the year of 2021 from Kuwait directly to her parents house, after came to know to them about her arrival to her parents house then he along with RW.s 5 and 6 were went to the house of the petitioner parents on the occasion of RW6 birthday. There, he seen one third person who was came with petitioner, when he questioned about said person then the petitioner informed that he is friend of her and by the time said person was making Biryani for the petitioner and his parents. Later they all are ate it, then he got doubt about said person, then he questioned to the petitioner that they have to go to their own house, for which the petitioner informed that she will come after four days of rest at her parents’ house. Later on 4th day when the RW6 went to the room of petitioner for taking towel, then RW6 noticed that the petitioner placed her head in the folds of said person, then his daughter called him, then he went there and seen them, then he questioned to the petitioner about her acts, on that PW.2, petitioner brother and the petitioner were revolted against him, there the petitioner informed that she do not required him and her children and she will give divorce to him. Later they went to Samisragudem P.S and informed that his wife brings someone and 6
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole residing with him, on that two constables along with him went to his father-in-law house but they have not found any person. Thereafter on the next day, petitioner came to police station and informed she do not require of him and her children’s and she will give divorce, later she filed a case under Sec.498-A IPC before police and the same is pending in this court against him and others.
12. Accordingly, on combined reading the above referred allegation of both petitioner and respondent which shows they have taken contradictory pleas to each other. Now, coming to the averments of the respondent counter which is not disclosing any fact as deposed by the Rw1 i.e., the alleged arrival of one 3rd person from Dubai with the petitioner and for him the dispute was went in between the petitioner and respondent. Therefore, the evidence deposed by
RW.1 showing that he deposed his evidence beyond his pleadings. Here, in the written argument of the respondent, it was specifically pleaded that the petitioner was intentionally neglected the respondent, for that the respondent looking after the welfare of himself and his two children. But said contention of respondent cannot taken into consideration due to reason that when the RW.1 evidence clearly disclosing that there is a presence of one third person at the house of petitioner parents, thereby the present dispute arose in between to the petitioner and respondent and basing on that only they have separated. But in order to prove the same it is not the case of respondent in their counter as the counter averments of respondent and his evidence are totally contradictory.
13. Further, In order to support the contention of respondent, the respondent chose to examine the RW.2 to Rw4 as independent witnesses, among them the
RW2 by name E.Venkateswara Rao deposed that, while the petitioner went to
Dubai, after two years she came to house along with one unknown person, for that there is a dispute occurred in between to the petitioner and respondent, thereafter the cases were filed except this fact nothing was deposed by him in his chief examination. During in his cross examination he deposed that, he do not know the personal affairs of the mother of respondent and her properties, so also he don’t know to say when she went to Dubai and when she came back 7
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole
India. He further deposed that the petitioner is residing at her father house. He further deposed that he know the case facts with regard to case filed by petitioner against the respondent and his family members and the petitioner filed said case as she lost her passport alleging the respondent took away the same.
Except these facts nothing was deposed by RW.2.
14. Further the RW.3 by name E.Musalayya and he deposed in his chief examination stating the petitioner went to Kuwait and came back, later the petitioner and respondent made disputes, then respondent informed the dispute, then he along with respondent and others went to police station. The dispute in between petitioner and respondent is their family issue which is not known to him. He further deposed that they went to police station due to one person came from Dubai by taking a parcel to the petitioner, for that the said person and respondent were disputed, on that the respondent went to police station and complained against said person. During in his cross examination he also deposed that as per him, he do not know in which year the petitioner went to
Dubai and when she came back to India, so also he deposed that he do not know the facts pertaining to how much amount send by petitioner to the accounts of respondent. He further deposed that he do not know whether petitioner obtained divorce from respondent or not.
15. Now coming to the evidence of RW.4 by name K.Dharmamma deposed that, as per him the petitioner and one person came from Kuwait to the parents house of petitioner, there the dispute occurred in between the petitioner and respondent and from then, the respondent and petitioners are separated and the petitioner is residing at her parents’ house. During his cross examination he deposed that he do not know in which year the respondent sent the petitioner to
Kuwait and when she came to India. He further deposed that he do not know after return of India to Kuwait how many days the petitioner and respondents are resided jointly. He further deposed that presently the petitioner is residing at her parents’ house.
8
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole
16. Accordingly, on combined reading to the evidence of RW.s 2 to 4 with the evidence of RW.1, it is disclosing that their evidence are entirely contradictory to each other, since as per the evidence of RW.1 the daughter of RW.1 seen the presence of the petitioner head in the flooded hands of one 3rd person who came from Kuwait, butwhereas the RW.6 who is daughter of petitioner and respondent deposed that the respondent seen the presence of petitioner head in the folded hands of said third person, therefore, there are contradictory evidence deposed by RW.1 and RW.6 having alleged acquaintance of petitioner with alleged third person. But here, the questionable point is whether really the dispute between petitioner and respondent was arose due to the said third person who was came from Kuwait to India to the petitioner parents’ house, but on perusal of the cross- examination evidence of PW.s 1 and 2 done by the respondent counsel, it is no where suggested that the dispute between petitioner and respondent was arose due to a third person who was came from Kuwait. Therefore, the entire evidence deposed by RW.s 1 was quite contradictory to his counter averments. Even though the RW.1 tried to impress upon this court that the petitioner was residing in adultery which was happened prior to filing of this petition itself, then who prevented to the respondent to take said contention in his counter itself as that of his evidence. Therefore, the evidence of RW.1 not proving about the alleged contention of respondent as mentioned in his counter. Moreover, none of the
RW.s 2 to 4 deposed that they have seen the said third person with the petitioner as the RW.s 2 to 4 and PW.s 1 and 2 are residents of same village.
17. Further, as per the evidence of petitioner and respondent, when the petitioner was came from Kuwait to India, then she was directly went to her parents house and the evidence of RW.1 also disclosing that there was a understanding in between petitioner and respondent that they will go to their own house after getting repairs of it, till then they will stay at the parents house of petitioner i.e. in-laws house to the respondent. As such the petitioner and respondent resided in the parents’ house of petitioner and finally they separated there.
9
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole
18. In order to support the contention of respondent, the respondent chose to examine his both children as RW.s 5 and 6. The evidence of RW.5 by name
K.Avinash who is aged about 17 years who is the son of the petitioner and respondent, disclosing that, her mother was came from Dubai in the year of 2022 to her parents house, on that day, his sister birthday, then he along with his sister went to his mother house by taking a piece of cake on that they asked her mother to come to their house, then her mother informed that after making repair works of said house, they will go to said house. Subsequently his father also went to petitioner parents house and asked to the petitioner father about sending of petitioner to their house, then the father of petitioner also agreed to send the petitioner to respondent house, but not send her. After two days, he and his sister went to hostels and in said two days he along with his sister and petitioner, respondent are resided at the parents’ house of petitioner. Later his father was went to the hostel of his sister and taken back of her since she is suffering with fever. Later, his father and his sister seen about the presence of his mother and with another person in a house and on seeing the same, the petitioner father went inside of his house by raising cries as respondent come. On seeing the same, the respondent questioned to his mother about her acts with other person, on that the petitioner, her father and brother and said third person, all of them beaten to his father and it was informed to him by his sister. Due to said incident, his father and his sister came back to their house. Later they lodged report. But her mother filed a case against his father alleging, his father committed theft of gold, passport and other articles.
19. The RW5 further deposed that after happening of the said dispute and filing cases, the petitioner never made any efforts to take back of himself and his sister with her and he further deposed that from the date of his mother went to
Kuwait till the day, his father was looking after their welfare.
20. During cross examination he admitted that his father himself send his mother to Kuwait. He further deposed that till today he was maintaining by himself as per the words of his father and he further deposed that on the date of 10
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole alleged dispute between his father and mother, he was present at Kovvur SC hostel and he was came to know only said incident through his father. He further deposed that after arrival of his mother from Kuwait, then, also his father and mother resided together for some days.
21. By perusal of the above referred evidence of RW.5 it is clearly disclosing that he is only a hearsay witness and he do not know and he was not seen personally about what was happened in between petitioner and respondent.
Therefore, the evidence of RW.4 has to be treated as only hearsay witness and his evidence has evidentiary value to take into consideration. Moreover, he clearly deposed that after went of his mother to Kuwait till her arrival to India i.e.
for a period of 5 years, the respondent herein maintaining them and he was acted as that of the words of respondent. Therefore, when respondent is holding the RW.5 and maintaining him for the absent period of PW.1 in India, then certainly there is a chance of influence of the respondent on the minds of RW.5.
Therefore, RW.5 evidence cannot take into consideration.
22. Now coming to the evidence of RW.6 who is daughter of petitioner and she is the important witness of this case, due to reason that as per the evidence of
RW.5, first the RW.6 who is only seen about the alleged placing of the head of the petitioner in the folded hands of said third person at her parents’ house. To that effect the RW.6 deposed that after knowing their mother came to India i.e.
on 03.07.2022 then she was not attended her birthday. But after 2 to 3 days of her mother came to India at her parents, one person also came from Kuwait to the parents house of petitioner and on that day while his father came to take bath in night time, then seen presence of his mother and said person in one room, then his father called her and shown the presence of her mother and said person in one room. Later her father called to petitioner from room stating respondent is coming, on that, while respondent is questioned the acts of petitioner, then PW.2 and brother of petitioner and said third person revolted against her father, for that the police cases were filed.
11
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole
23. Accordingly, On combined reading to the evidence of RW.1 and RW.6, they were deposed contradictory evidence before this Court. Moreover, this court already referred in above discussion at the evidence of RW.1, that the RW1 was not directly seen about presence of petitioner’s head in the hands of said 3rd person and first it was seen by RW.6 i.e. daughter of them. But whereas RW.6 deposed that first the respondent seen about presence of petitioner and said third person in one room at petitioner parents house, as such they were deposed contradictory evidence which is not supporting with the evidence of any other witnesses. Therefore, when the dispute in between petitioner and respondent is arose with regard to presence of said third person but the evidence of RW.s 1 and 6 there is contradictory version with regard to presence of petitioner with said third person.
24. Moreover the evidence of RW.s 2 to 5 disclosing that they have not seen presence of the said third person in the parents’ house of the petitioner, then certainly the evidence deposed by RW.s 1 to 6 are not inspiring any confidence in the minds of this court to say that whether really a third person was came from
Kuwait to the petitioner at her parents house or not, since when the petitioner and respondent were resided some days at petitioner parents’ house and in that time said third person also resided with them and the said person was also questioned by respondent as who is said person to the petitioner and then she informed that he is friend of her, then certainly those recitals will be excepted in the counter of the respondent but the counter of the respondent is silent on the said aspect.
25. Further, the evidence deposed by the all the respondent witnesses shows that, there was a arrival of one person from Kuwait to the petitioner parents hose
for petitioner and he stayed there for some days but the name of said person is
no where deposed by either of them to say that the contention taken by respondent is a true and correct.
12
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole
26. The respondent further pleaded that, the petitioner was voluntarily neglected the children of her and the respondent as such she is not entitiled to claim maintenance. But, as per the contention of petitioner when she asked about accounts of the amounts sent by her to the respondent from Kuwait, then the respondent was demanded more amount to the petitioner stating she was concealed some of the amount which was earned by her at Kuwait for that the dispute was occurred and the same was also supported by the evidence of
PW.2. even the respondent were cross examined them but no new evidence was elicited from their mouth. Hence, the respondent is failed to prove the reason offered by him for the alleged separation of himself and petitioner, then certainly the case of petitioner has to be accepted as correct one.
27. Moreover, as per the evidence of RW.s 1 to 6, it is disclosing that the RW.s 5 and 6 were resided along with respondent in the absence of petitioner as petitioner went to Kuwait and resided there for earning money and send said amount to the respondent, then certainly the children of petitioner will be in the hands of respondent as respondent taking care of them in the absence of petitioner. Then the question of negligence or voluntary desertion on the part of petitioner will not arose. Therefore, the contention of respondent not at all tenable.
28. Here, the respondent relied on a judgment decided by Hon’ble High Court of AP in between Rehana Sulthana @ Rehana Begum Vs. B.Mohammad
Ghouse & another decided on 28th March, 2016 in Criminal Petition No.6645 of 2010 in 2003(1) ALT (Cri.) 369. But the judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
29. On the other hand, the petitioner counsel relied on judgments decided by
1) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in between Dr.Swapan Kumar Banerjee vs.
State of West Bengal and another, held in 2019(2) ALD (Crl.) 1008 (SC); 2)
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in between S.K.Mohidden vs. S.Parven
and another held in 2021 (1) ALD (Crl.) 275 (AP); and 3) 1996(2) ALD (CRI), 90 13
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole between L.Srinivasa Reddy vs. L.Ramalakshumma and anr. In all these judgments it was held by Hon’ble Appex court that Mere a wife who was taken divorce from her husband is not a ground to deny the maintenance to her from her husband and a divorce woman can claim maintenance from her husband until she get remarriage. Therefore, in the present case in hand also as per the evidence of petitioner and respondent, the petitioner obtained divorce from respondent but that itself will not took away the right of petitioner to claim maintenance from the respondent. Therefore, this point is answered in favour of petitioner by holding that the respondent himself deserted the petitioner.
POINT No.2 :
30. With regard to this point, the contention of respondent is that the petitioner had sufficient means to maintain herself and also she worked at Kuwait as she is an educated person, thereby she had sufficient means to maintain herself.
Therefore, there is no need to grant maintenance to the petitioner as prayed in this petition.
31. On the other hand, the respondent counter shows that he is getting megre amount only and he had burden to maintain his children and also he is having responsibility to pay the educational fee to them. Therefore, court may dismiss the petition filed by petitioner.
32. With regard to means to the petitioner, the case of petitioner is that, due to taking away of her passport and her ID card and other things by respondent from her parents house, then she is residing at her parents’ house on the mercy of her parents by doing coolie work. In order to support the same, during cross- examination of RW.1 deposed, it is true, presently petitioner is residing at her parents’ house and her parents were maintaining her. Further the RW.3 deposed in their cross examination that presently petitioner is residing at her parents’ house. So also the RW.4 during cross-examination deposed that, petitioner is a literate person. Further, the RW.2 during cross-examination deposed that, it is true that, petitioner is not doing job and he added that petitioner is doing coolie works.
14
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole
33. Accordingly on combined reading of the evidence of RW.s 1 to 4, it is disclosing that, the petitioner is living by doing coolie work and living upon the mercy of her parents and she is an illiterate person and due to the alleged taken away of her passport and other ID cards pertaining to her work at Kuwait, for that she unable to maintain herself and stayed at India and as she is not getting any income and living by depending upon their parents’ income. Therefore, it is proved by the petitioner that, she is not getting any income and she is living upon mercy of their parents only.
34. On the other hand, the contention of petitioner is that, the respondent is doing interest business and also doing private job and getting income of
Rs.70,000/- per month, thereby she is praying to the court to grant maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. During cross examination done by respondent counsel on PW.1, there is no contradictory evidence elicited in order to deny having means to respondent, however respondent himself deposed in his evidence stating that, he is doing coolie work and getting income of Rs.350/- per day in which he has to see the welfare of his both children, so also take care of himself and he was paying amount of Rs.25,000/- towards college fees of his son, as such he is not having any income to pay maintenance to the petitioner.
35. Accordingly, after perusal of the above said contention of both side, admittedly, mere obtaining divorce by petitioner from respondent itself, will not cause obstruction to the petitioner to claim maintenance from the respondent as discussed in point NO.1, but here, the respondent is maintaining his children which is admitted by petitioner also, but that itself will not took away the liability of respondent to maintain his wife until her re-marriage as prescribed under
Sec.125 of Cr.P.C. Further the evidence of RW.1showing that his mother also worked in Dubai for a period of 11 years and she came back to India about 6 years ago and his father is doing private job in Hyderabad, so also his brother is doing job in Car company at Samisragudem and his sister marriage also performed by them as such he has only burden to maintain himself and his children.
15
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole
36. Therefore, it is proving that, the respondent had no other burden than maintaining himself, his children and also had a house property in the same village of petitioner and the petitioner had no house to stay of her and she was residing at her parents’ house upon their mercy and as per the evidence of
RW.6, in the petitioner parent’s house, the petitioner parents, the petitioner brothers and herself are residing. It shoes the contention of the petitioner is a correct one.
37. Further, it is a bounded duty upon the respondent to maintain the petitioner herein as provided under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. Further, the respondent failed to prove about any income source to the petitioner and she also filed a criminal case against the respondent and his family members alleging they took away her passport and other articles as mentioned above. Therefore, the respondent is duty to maintain the petitioner as the respondent failed to prove the source of income to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner proved that she has no income source to maintain herself. Hence respondent is liable to maintain the petitioner.
Accordingly this point is answered in favour of petitioner.
POINT NO.3 :-
38. As per the petitioner, she claim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the respondent, but by the above discussion made by this court in point no.2 disclosing that the respondent had income source to maintain the petitioner and he had no burden to maintain anyone than his children, thereby by taking consideration of the income source stated by respondent, this court found it is a fit case to allow present petition by granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, payable by respondent to the petitioner.
40. IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed, by granting maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month to the petitioner payable by the respondent and the respondent is directed to pay the maintenance amount to the petitioner on or before 10th day of every succeeding month. The petitioner is entitled to claim maintenance from the date of filing of this petition. An amount of 16
M.C.No.1/2024 Dt.28.01.2025
P.C.J. (Jr.Div.) cum J.F.C.M., Nidadavole
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is hereby awarded to the petitioner towards costs of this petition.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in open Court, on this the 28th day of January, 2025.
RAMAKRISHNADigitally signed by
GRAMAKRISHNA G
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Div.) CUM-
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
NIDADAVOLE.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner :
PW.1 : Kallem Dhanalakshmi, PW.2 : S.Koteswara Rao.
For Respondent:
RW.1 : Kallem Ravi RW.2 : E.Venkateswara Rao RW.3 : E.Musalayya RW.4 : K.Dharmayya RW.5 : K.Avinash RW.6 : K.Kousalya
Exhibits Marked
For Petitioner : For Respondent:
No documentary evidence is adduced on either side.
Digitally signed RAMAKRISHNAby
GRAMAKRISHNA
G P.C.J. (Jr. Div.)cum
J.F.C.M., NDD.