Remanded

Pydi at Paidi Srikanth v. Pydi at paidi Priyanka

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2021CRLRC/2591/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition assails a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the maintenance quantum was unauthorized without income material. It set aside the order, remanded for fresh inquiry, and required the petitioner to deposit arrears.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Family Court for fresh consideration; petitioner directed to deposit arrears of Rs.12,000/month in 12 weekly instalments.

Pydi at Paidi Srikanth Vs Pydi at paidi… — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No.2591 of 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is filed assailing the order dated 18.07.2018 passed in FCMC.No.19 of 2018 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance, was allowed granting maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1^st petitioner and Rs.8,000/- per month each to the petitioners 2 and 3, and directing the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/towards litigation expenses to the petitioners.

¶5

Heard Smt. Radha Rani, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the court below passed the impugned order without there being any material and without giving any opportunity to the revision petitioner. She submits that nothing has been placed on record to show the income of the revision petitioner and in the absence of any material with regard to income of the revision petitioner, the court below grossly erred in granting monthly maintenance basing upon the mere assertions of the respondents. In fact, the revision petitioner is getting net salary at Rs.27,000/- per month and he has to look after his parents and the maintenance granted by the court below is on higher side and the petitioner is not in a position to pay the said maintenance.

¶7

LK, J CRLP.No.2591 of 2018

¶8

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the criminal revision case itself is not maintainable, on the ground that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 126 itself provides the power or authority to a Magistrate to set aside the order so made under Section 125 on an application filed within three months from the date of order. He submits that without availing such remedy the revision petitioner has directly approached this court through the revision case. He further submits that the impugned order was passed in the year 2018, and as of now no amounts were paid by the revision petitioner to the respondents and the respondents are not able to maintain themselves. He submits that the revision petitioner being able bodied person is responsible to take care of his wife and children. As such, since the revision petitioner is approached this court without availing the remedy available under the proviso to Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, admittedly the criminal revision case is of the year 2018. After passing the impugned order, the revision petitioner has not paid any amount to the respondents till date. More over, the impugned order is an ex parte order. It is no doubt true that there is remedy available under the proviso to Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. to the revision petitioner to file an application before the court below. In the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be met if the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh consideration.

LK, J

CRLP.No.2591 of 2018

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 18.07.2018 in F.C.M.C.No.19 of 2018 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam is set aside remanding the matter to the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for fresh consideration, subject to condition of the revision petitioner depositing arrears of maintenance at Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of order i.e. 18.07.2018 to till date in four equal instalments within a period of twelve (12) weeks and continue to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/per month on or before 5^th of every succeeding month. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

¶17

Date: 20.03.2021

¶18

Ksn

Pydi at Paidi Srikanth v. Pydi at paidi Priyanka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pydi at Paidi Srikanth v. Pydi at paidi Priyanka

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

Gulivindula Harish Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Venkata Subbaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dalari Yedukondalu, Vs Mis Shri Ram City Union Finance Vinukonda.

Mathala Srinu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Iragamreddy Naga Dasthagiri Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sahik Simpathi Prakruddin @ Shaik Cheeparthi Fakuruddin @ Shaik Simpathi Fakuruddin Fakruvalli @ Sa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh