Partly allowed

Ch Ramanarsimham Naidu v. Smt Challa Seetha Ratnam

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2021CRLRC/486/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision case challenged a maintenance order granting Rs. 18,000 per month to respondents against a petitioner with a gross salary of Rs. 34,612 per month. The High Court found the amount disproportionate and reduced it to Rs. 14,000 per month.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 9,000 per month to the 1st respondent and Rs. 5,000 per month to the 2nd respondent.

Ch Ramanarsimham Naidu Vs Smt Challa Seetha… — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.486 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

Assailing the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in F.C.M.C.No.58 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, whereby the petition filed under Section 125 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) was allowed, this criminal revision case under Sections 397 (1) & 401 of Cr.P.C is filed.

¶4

The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the respondents herein filed F.C.M.C.No.58 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam seeking maintenance on the ground that the petitioner herein has completely neglected to maintain them. The Court below after conducting full-fledged enquiry passed the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1^st respondent herein and an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the 2^nd respondent herein payable on or before 5^th of every succeeding month. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision case.

¶5

Heard Sri P.Ganesh, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of 3^rd respondent-State. Even though notices were served on the respondents 1 and 2, none appeared on their behalf.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below without appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the

¶7

¶8

petitioner in a proper perspective has awarded the maintenance, which is on higher side. The Court below has failed to observe that the petitioner has to take care of his aged mother, who is suffering with ailments. He submits that the Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the 1^st respondent who examined herself as P.W.1 admitted in her cross examination that the petitioner herein is residing in a rented house by paying Rs.3,500/- per month. He submits that there is no sufficient evidence placed before the Court below with regard to means of the petitioner herein. He submits that the Court below has also failed to appreciate the fact that in spite of best efforts made by the petitioner through elders for reunion, the 1^st respondent is reluctant to join the petitioner, as such the respondents are not entitled for any maintenance.

¶9

Though notices were served on the respondents 1 and 2 none appeared on their behalf.

¶10

There is no dispute about the factum of marriage. On perusal of the impugned order, the Court below has not given any reasons for granting total maintenance of Rs.18,000/- to the respondents herein, which is more than half of the gross salary of the petitioner herein. It is admitted fact that the gross salary of the petitioner herein is Rs.34,612/- per month and the petitioner is staying in a rented house by paying rent of Rs.3,500/- per month. In view of the same, the quantum of maintenance granted by the Court below to the respondents herein is quite disproportionate and hence, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the maintenance.

¶11

¶12

Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month to the 1^st respondent herein and an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2^nd respondent herein towards their maintenance payable on or before 5^th of every succeeding month. The rest of order of the Court below holds good.

¶13

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶14

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

4^th March, 2021

PVD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶19

(Disposed of)

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.486 of 2020

¶21

4^th March, 2021

¶22

PVD

Ch Ramanarsimham Naidu v. Smt Challa Seetha Ratnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch Ramanarsimham Naidu v. Smt Challa Seetha Ratnam

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

Pittu Srinivas Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chatla Semonu at Ch. Srinivasa Rao Vs the State

Cherukuri Venkaiah Vs The State SHO

Maddi Sudarshan Kumar Vs The State of A.P.

P.v.S.Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Ap

B. Malla Reddy, Kurnool Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd