K. Jaya Kumar

In the Court of the X Addl. Sessions Judge: Gurazala,

Present:-K. Jaya Kumar, XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, FAC.X Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurazala,

Thursday, this the 13th day of April, 2017,

Criminal Revision Petition No.111 of 2016

(MC NO.40 of 2015 on the file of JMFC, Piduguralla) Between: Repala Venkateswara Rao, S/o.lakshmi Narayana, 52 years, Hindu, R/o.Sitharamapuram mines road, Kondamodu, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. ...Revision petitioner

And

Repala Lakshmi Sai Kumari, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, 46 years, Hindu, R/o.D. No.9-399, Piduguralla town

and Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondent

This revision petition is coming on 07.04.2017 before me for hearing in the presence of K. V. Nagarjuna, Advocate for Revision petitioner and of Sri Kota Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Respondent, upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The respondent, R. Venkateswara rao, in M.C.40/2015, on the file of JFCM, Piduguralla filed this criminal revision petition, as provided U/sec. 397 of Cr.P.C challenging the correctness of the order made therein

dt. 22-8-2016, wherein he was directed to pay a monthly maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondent/petitioner.

02.Heard both the learned counsel representing the parties.

03.It is the submission of the counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent/petitioner herself deserted the revision petitioner herein without any justifiable reason; and that the revision petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.9,20,000/- in her account which she took away and started business along with her brother at Piduguralla; and that the revision petitioner is suffering from serious ailments and he has no income of his own; and that he himself is a dependent; and that the learned trial court even without there being any evidence with regard to the means and income of the revision petitioner, awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner and prayed the Court to set aside the said order in M.C. 40/2015 and dismiss the same.

04.On the other hand, it is the submission of the counsel for the respondent/wife that the revision petitioner is doing real estate and car travels business and earning sufficiently; and that he deserted his wife without any justifiable reason forcing her to stay with her brother and assisting him in his business, but the revision petitioner is canvasing that his wife herself carrying on fancy shop business at pIduguralla and that the respondent wife has no income of her own and prayed the Court to dismiss the CRP.

05.Now the point for consideration is: Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order made in M.C. 40/2015 on the file of JFCM, Piduguralla ?

06.POINT : For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the

M.C.40/2015. The revision petitioner, R. Venkateswara Rao, is the

respondent, while the respondent, R. Lakshmi Sai Kumari, is the petitioner.

There is no dispute as to the relationship of the parties. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place on 25-11-1987. They were not blessed with any issues. As per the evidence on record, the relationship between the couple were strained in the year 2010 or 2011. It is the claim of the petitioner and her witnesses that the respondent drove her out on 23-4-2011, consequently she is staying with her brother/PW3. It appears from the evidence on both sides, that the petitioner herein filed a criminal case against the respondent for offence U/sec. 498A of IPC on the file of JFCM, Piduguralla vide CC. 187/2011 which was admittedly ended in acquittal. Further as per the admission made by the petitioner as Pw1 that she filed HMOP. 43/2011 seeking divorce against the respondent, but the same was dismissed for default for non prosecution. Further, the admission made by the petitioner as PW1 that she filed OS. 178/2011 on the file of the Court of learned senior Civil Judge, Gurazala seeking maintenance and the same was admittedly dismissed for default non prosecution. She filed another CC against the respondent alleging that he is harassing her on phone vide CC. 38/2012 on the file of JFCM, Piduguralla and the same was also ended in acquittal. The admissions made by the petitioner as PW1 would prove that she filed as many cases as possible against the respondent, right from the year 2011 including a civil suit seeking maintenance and OP seeking divorce. Admittedly, the maintenance suit and HMOP filed by the petitioner were dismissed for default for non prosecution and criminal case filed by her against him for the offence U/sec.498A and another criminal cases on the file of JFCM, Piduguralla were ended in acquittal. It is clear from the admissions made by the petitioner/PW1 that she filed many cases against the respondent, but in no case she succeded. These admissions would further prove that all is not well with the couple at least for the last 6 or 7 years. As noticed herein before the parties to these proceeding were not living together at least from the year 2011.

07.It appears, after the HMOP filed by his wife seeking divorce against him was dismissed for default, the respondent filed HMOP.141/2015 against the petitioner seeking divorce on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Gurazala and the same is pending. Admittedly, the relationship between the couple is not at severed. Further as per the material on record, there is no scope for the couple to living together, in future.

08.The petitioner herein admittedly filed the maintenance case against the respondent seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. No where in her petition or in her evidence the petitioner claim that the respondent is earning a particular amount either in his business or otherwise. On this score, it is the say of the respondent that he was seriously ill and not doing any work or doing business and he himself as a dependent.

09.During the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the respondent has sold away the houses and shop long back. On this count, it is the claim of the respondent that deposited Rs.9,20,000/- to the account of the petitioner which she has taken away. The petitioner, as a matter of fact did not deny the above said claim of the respondent so far as depositing of Rs. 9,20,0000/- in her account. However it is not clear, even in the evidence of both parties, the purpose for which the respondent has deposited the said amount in the account of his wife. It is not his say that he kept the said amount for her maintenance much less towards her permanent alimony. Though the respondent would claim that his wife is maintaining a fancy shop along with her brother and claimed that he can produce the document, no such proof is filed by him, in the court below or in this court. Of course, it is there on record in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 that the petitioner assisting his brother in the fancy shop business in Piduguralla. It is under these circumstances, it can be said without hesitation, that the petitioner earning something at least while assisting her brother. As noticed herein before the petitioner, no where in her petition or in her evidence deposed that her husband is earning any income. She herself admitted that the respondent sold away the houses constricted by him. Though the witnesses of the petitioner would claim that the respondent is doing real estate business, no proof is forthcoming to prove the same. On the other hand, the evidence of respondent as R.W.1 and the documents filed by him would proved that he is suffering from serious ailments and taking treatment. The learned trail judge without recording any finding as to the income of the respondent, allowed the petition in toto and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as claimed by her. As no finding is recorded as to the income of the respondent and further absolutely there is no evidence on record to arrive at any definite conclusion to as to the income of the respondent, this Court is of the opinion awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner, in the humble opinion of the court, is very excessive and abnormal. However, as there is no dispute as to the relationship of the parties and the parties to the proceedings are living separately from each other at least for the last 6 or 7 years, and as the respondent failed file any proof to show that income of his wife to maintain herself, this Court is of the opinion that at least a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month is required for the petitioner to meet the bare necessities and the respondent being her husband shall support her to meet the said necessities. Accordingly, the point is answered partly infavour of the revision petitioner/husband and against respondent/wife.

10.In the result, the petition is partly allowed, reducing the monthly maintenance awarded to the petitioner in M.C.40/2015 from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) from the date of the order therein ie., 22-8-2016. No order as to costs in this petition.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K. Jaya Kumar

XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. FAC.X Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurazala. Copy to: The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piduguralla.

// True Copy //

FAC.XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.