Dismissed

S.Saqorjahan v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2024CRLP/2103/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order dismissing a review seeking enhancement of maintenance. The court held that without evidence of increased earning capacity, the lower court order stood, and dismissed the petition while granting liberty to file a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed; liberty granted to file a fresh application for enhancement of maintenance if advised.

S.Saqorjahan Vs State of Ap — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010100402019

¶2

[3333]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2103/2019

¶9

Between:

¶10

S.saqorjahan and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

State Of Ap and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶16

1.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶18

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶19

2.S S BHATT

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

ORDER :

¶22

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the order passed in C.R.P.No.116 of 2016, on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

¶23

The petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent No.2 and their marriage is performed on 03.02.2008 at Mandanapalle and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are their son and the daughter. Due to the harassment made by the respondent No.2 and his parents, the petitioner No.1 along with her children is residing at her parents’ house at Madanapalle and had lodged a complaint before the SHO, II Town Police Station, Madanapalle. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 has filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.16 of 2013 and also filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.53 of 2014, on the file of the II Additional District Magistrate, Madanapalle, seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioners, wherein the trial Court had transferred the said maintenance case to the Special Magistrate Court, Madanapalle, and the same was numbered as M.C.No.54 of 2015,. After completion of the trial, the learned Magistrate, by an order dated 08.08.2016, has partly allowed the maintenance case and granted Rs.2,000/- each to the petitioners per month, payable by the respondent No.2.

¶24

As the Petitioner No.1 is unable to maintain herself and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, with a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each, which in total amounts to Rs.6,000/- per month, the petitioners herein filed C.R.P.No.116 of 2016, on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, against the order dated 08.08.2016, passed by the Special Magistrate Court, Madanapalle in M.C.No.54 of 2015, seeking for enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- each to Rs.5,000/each. But, the trial Court, after hearing both sides vide its order dated 03.10.2018, dismissed the aforesaid Revision Petition by confirming the order dated 08.08.2016, passed by the Special Magistrate Court, Madanapalle in M.C.No.54 of 2015. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the II

¶25

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District in C.R.P.No.116 of 2016, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition seeking for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- per month each to Rs.10,000/- per month each.

¶26

On a perusal of the order dated 08.08.2016, passed by the Special Magistrate Court, Madanapalle in M.C.No.54 of 2015, it can be seen that the learned trial Judge after hearing the submissions of both sides came to a conclusion that, admittedly though the petitioner No.1 herein has deposed in her evidence that the respondent No.2 herein has properties in his name, there are no documentary evidences to prove the same. But, however, the trial Court having observed that as the respondent No.2 is an able bodied male person and is working as an electrician, the fixation of a reasonable amount of maintenance would meet the ends of justice to the petitioners and accordingly, the learned trial Judge has granted maintenance to an amount of Rs.2,000/per month to each petitioner from the dated of filing the maintenance case before the trial Court i.e., from 30.12.2013 and also held that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for the maintenance till they attain the age of majority and directed the respondent No.2 herein to pay the maintenance amount to the petitioners on or before 10^th of every succeeding month.

¶27

Further, on a perusal of the order dated 03.10.2018, passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in C.R.P.No.116 of 2016, it can also be understood that, when the Revision Petition came up for hearing before the trial Court, the revision petitioners therein failed to place appropriate evidence proving that the respondent No.2 herein has more earning capacity than what he stated before the Special Magistrate Court, Madanapalle in M.C.No.54 of 2015. The learned trial Judge has also stated in the order dated 03.10.2018, that the petitioner No.1 herein has also failed to prove the contention taken by the respondent No.2 in M.C.No.54 of 2015 stating that he is working as an electrician and met with an electric shock and at present he is earning Rs.100/- to Rs.120/- per day on his working days. Having regard to the factual background of the case and in view of the reasoning rendered by the Judge, Special Magistrate Court, Madanapalle in

¶28

M.C.No.54 of 2015, the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, by an order dated 03.10.2018, dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and confirmed the order dated 08.08.2016.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no wrong in the order passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, as the Court below has rightly pointed out that in the absence of any evidence, it is highly difficult to understand the very contention taken by the petitioners. Therefore, the Order dated 03.10.2018, passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, does not suffer from illegality and requires no interference of this Court. Further, if at all the petitioners are really in need for enhancement of the maintenance amount granted by the Special Magistrate Court, Madanapalle, in M.C.No.54 of 2015, in such a case this Court feels it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner for filing a fresh application seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount granted by the trial Court.

¶30

As such, the order dated 03.10.2018 passed in C.R.P.No.116 of 2016, by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District warrants no interference by this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed by granting liberty to the petitioner No.1 for filing a fresh application seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount granted by the trial Court, if she is advised to do so.

¶32

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶33

JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶34

___________________

Date:16.12.2024

SRT

208

THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶39

Crl.P.No.2103 of 2019

¶40

Date: 16.12.2024

¶41

SRT

S.Saqorjahan v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Saqorjahan v. State of Ap

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

K Madhavi Vs the State of Ap

B.Mohan Krishna, Chittoor Dist Vs Prl Secy, Energy, Infrastructure & Investment Dept. Hyd &2OT

S.Yerikalaiah, Ysr Kadapa Dist Vs Prl Secy, Panchayat Raj & Rural Devt., Guntur Dist & 4 Oth

M.Venkateswara Reddy Vs State of Ap

P.Nuka Raju Vs State of Ap

Boga Venkata Siva Prasad Vs Pathapati Vijayalakshmi