Dismissed

Guthikonda Subba Rao and Another, v. Guthikonda Pushpavathamma and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2020CRLRC/1210/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision filed against an order awarding monthly maintenance to a mother from her adult son's income. The court upheld the trial court's appreciation of evidence and factual findings regarding the Respondents' earning potential and the Petitioner's financial need.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; impugned order in M.C. No. 100 of 2008 keeping dear.

Guthikonda Subba Rao and Another, Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1210 of 2008

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Challenging the Order in M.C. No. 100 of 2008, dated 23.06.2008, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure [‘ Cr.P.C. ’].

¶4

Originally, Petitioner –Guthikonda Pushpavathamma filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month from the Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein who are her sons. According to her, her husband died about 28 years ago and at that time the Respondents were minors. The Petitioner was doing vegetable business on roadside in Brodipet, Guntur, and brought up children and later the Respondent No. 1 to 3 became Carpenters. According to her, each of the Respondents were earning not less than Rs.15,000/- per month and the Respondent No. 4 is married and living with the Petitioner. But, however, Respondent No. 1 to 3 are living separately. The Petitioner was threatened by Respondent No. 1 to 3 and assaulted her, as such, she lodged a report with Police, Arundelpet Police Station on 08.08.2007. Having regard to the above, it is pleaded that the Petitioner is entitled for maintenance.

¶5

Counter came to be filed by the Respondents disputing the same, but, however, said that the application came to be filed when the Respondents demanded for partition of the property. The record also shows that O.S. No. 86 of 2008 was filed for partition.

¶6

¶7

In support of her claim, the Petitioner examined herself as PW1, but, however, she did not mark any documents. The Respondents did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary in support of their case.

¶8

Having regard to the circumstances, the Lower Court allowed the Maintenance Case and directed the Respondent No. 1 to 3 each to pay Rs.1,500/- per month and Respondent No. 4 to pay Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of petition. The Respondents were directed to deposit the awarded maintenance amount in the bank account of the Petitioner every month. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case came to be filed.

¶9

1. Heard both sides, perused the record.

¶10

As seen from the record, the Respondents have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. On the other hand, the Petitioner examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the Petition in her evidence. It would be appropriate to extract paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgment of the Lower Court, which reads as under:-

¶11

“9. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the mother of the respondents. Her husband died when the respondents were small aged, evidently their family had no property except a house plot over which the petitioner has constructed a house by melting her blood and sweat as vegetable vendor. It appears that the respondents 1 to 3 have filed suit for partition of the said house contending that it is their ancestors’ property. It is purely a question of fact whether it is the ancestors’ property or the self acquired property of the petitioner and since a suit is already filed, this question would be effectively decided in that suit. However, the petitioner has

¶12

¶13

plainly admitted that she has let out 2 small portions of their house for aggregate rent of Rs.600/- per month by residing in the remaining small portion. The respondents have not led any evidence to show that the petitioner gets any huge income over and above Rs.600/- per month. It is not disputed that he petitioner being old, suffers from all kinds of old age ailments. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner requires maintenance not only for her food and shelter but also, for medicines.

¶14

10. The respondents 1 and 3 have plainly reported no evidence on their behalf, as such it can be gathered from their conduct that they would abide by any reasonable order or maintenance passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the respondents 1 and 3 are earning rupees fifteen thousand per month. No, doubt, she has not led any oral evidence but it would be reasonable to speculate the income of the respondents 1 to 3 at Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- per day as carpenter. Evidently they are in this field for a long time as such they would have become skilled carpenters. Now, that an ordinary labour gets atleast Rs.100/- per day it would be reasonable to expect a skilled carpenter to get atleast triple the said income. Therefore, it can be said that the income of the respondents 1 to 3 would be ranging from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.9,000/per month. Therefore, keeping in view of the petitioner’s status as mother and the respondents conduct as her sons, it would be reasonable to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay Rs.1,500/- per month each”.

¶15

The findings arrived at by the trial court, which are based on evidence adduced warrants no interference, more so, when R1 to R3 are earning not less than Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month, which finding is not challenged.

¶16

1. Having regard to the above, the Court feels that the finding of the Trial Court and the Order impugned warrants no interference.

¶17

¶18

1. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is Dismissed .

¶19

1. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶20

stand closed.

¶21

JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶22

Date: 19.02.2020 SM.

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶25

Criminal Revision Case No. 1210 of 2008

¶26

Date: 19.02.2020

¶27

SM.

Guthikonda Subba Rao and Another, v. Guthikonda Pushpavathamma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guthikonda Subba Rao and Another, v. Guthikonda Pushpavathamma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. P.Raghunadh, Vs State of a.P., Rep by P., and Another

Kantamneni Koteswara Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

G.Sarveswara Rao Vs the State of A.P.

Kallepalli Satyanarayana Raju Vs Josyula Prabhakara Sastry

Chalasani Babu Rajendra Prasad (Died) Vs Josyula Bala

Chalasani Nagamani Vs Josyula Bala