Dismissed

Kakarla Kasinath, v. Kakarla Suvarna, & Another

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Nov 2024CRLRC/1775/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amravati bench dismissed the Husband's criminal revision petition challenging the Family Court order granting monthly maintenance. The court held there was no manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the trial court's findings. It affirmed finding that the wife was entitled to maintenance and the awarded quantum was reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No. 1775 of 2012 dismissed confirming the order dated 26.07.2012 of the Family Court at Kurnool.

Kakarla Kasinath, Vs Kakarla Suvarna, & Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

^ 4t

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1775 OF 2012

¶7

BETWEEN;

¶8

Kakarla Kasinath, S/o. K.Kasaiah, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o 11-6-66/1 Pochammabagh Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Kakarla Suvarna, W/o. K.Kasinath, D/o. G.Krishnudu,^{Occ;Housewife,} R/o 28-851-R4, Nivarthy Nagar, NGO Colony, Nandyal^Town,Kurnool District.

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC praying^that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^{oftheCriminalRevision} Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this^Memorandum of CrI.R.C. to this Court against the order dt.26-07-2012 passed in FCMC.No.2 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family^Court at Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitloner(s):- SRI. SODUM ANVESHA

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner{s);- SRI. LEGAL AID

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents:- SRI. K. RATHANGA PANI^REDDY

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1775 of 2012

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Assailing the Maintenance Order dated 26.07.2012 in F.C.M.C.No.2 of 2012 on the file of the Family Court^atKurnool, the petitioner/respondent/husband filed the present^criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The shorn of necessary facts leading to file the original petition as pleaded by the respondent/wife are that:

¶23

i). The marriage of the 1 St respondent and revision petitioner solemnized on 09.05.2007 at Satreddypalli Village, Giddaluru Mandal of Prakasam District as per Hindu caste customs and rites. The marriage was consummated, but they were not blessed with children. ii). Later the revision petitioner addicted to vices. suspected her character, beat her, and abused her on several occasions. He necked her out from the matrimonial home with a demand of additional dowry. ii). The revision petitioner is working as an employeeⁱⁿ Sriram Chits, getting salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month

¶24

¶25

and owns two stored residential building at Saroornagar worth of Rs.50,00,000/- and getting monthly rents.^He always neglected to maintain her, she has no source^of income and unable to maintain herself. Thereby, the revision petitioner/husband is bound to maintain her by paying monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/-. Hence, the petition.

¶26

The petition was taken on file and numbered as F.C.M.C.No.2 of 2012 on the file of the Family Court^atKurnool.

¶27

The petitioner/husband filed counter and denied the allegations made by the respondent/wife, while admitting the relationship between the parties and pleaded that:

¶28

i). The respondent never cooperated with him and not discharged her household duties. Due to differences,^she left his company in the month of September 2007. Both of them agreed to take divorce by mutual consent, he agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- towards permanent alimony and accordingly they filed P.L.C.No.63 of 2009 on 08.04.2009 before Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District^and he paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to her by demand draft bearing No.210281 dated 08.04.2009, but she failed to appear before Lok Adalat on 06.11.2009. As such, he filed

¶29

¶30

¶31

O.P.No.197 of 2010 before Family Court, Ranga Reddy District for divorce. Then, she filed the present case^asa counter blast. Thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. After full-fledged enquiry, learned Judge, Family Court^at Kurnool, vide order dated 26.07.2012, granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent/wife from^thedate of order payable on or before 10* of every succeeding^month. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband preferred present criminal revision case. 7. Heard Smt.Sodeem Anvesha, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of^{laworflagrant} miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court?”

¶32

Smt.Sodeem Anvesha, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband submits^thatthe revision petitioner already paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/to the respondent; that the petitioner is suffering from^disability since childhood and could not maintain himself, which is not considered by the Trial Court; that the respondent^herselfleft the company of petitioner, thereby he is not bound^topayany

¶33

¶34

¶35

maintenance to her, thereby, prays to consider the present revision. 10. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused^the entire material available on record. There is no dispute^about the relationship between the parties as husband and^wife. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner as well respondent residing separately. Furthermore, the respondent did not prefer any appeal against the findings recorded by the Trial^Court. 11. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that^the respondent herself deserted him without any reasonable cause and thereby, she is not entitled to get any maintenance,^which is not considered by the trial Court.

¶36

To prove her case, the respondent got examined herself before the trial Court as P.W.l and also her mother as P.W.2. They reiterated the pleadings in their testimonies. The testimony of P.W.2 is fully corroborated to the testimony of^P.W.l. It is an undisputed fact that a demand draft was taken for an^amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in name of the respondent by the petitioner. But it is the case of the respondent that she never^receivedthe said demand draft from the petitioner, but the petitioner cleverly after obtaining the demand draft in her name came along^with

¶37

¶38

her to Nandyal, where he got it encashed. However,^thesameis not relevant to grant any maintenance to the respondent.

¶39

¶40

It is the case of the respondent that because of bald allegation made against her by attributing as she was^reluctant to cohabit with him and not willing to give sexual^pleasureto him, thereby deprived him for conjugal life, which^isnothingbut blatant lie. Due to such bald allegations made by the petitioner/husband, she was compelled to left from the matrimonial fold, thereby, no fault can be attributed^against her. As such, the respondent/wife is entitled for maintenance. 14. Coming to the quantum of maintenance payable by the revision petitioner is concerned, it is settled that^the revision petitioner being husband of the respondent/wife and ablebodied person bound to maintain her. It is to be noted that even as per the version of petitioner, he is working^asAgentin Sriram Chits and getting salary. Albeit the respondent/wife claimed monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/-, the Trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the^caserightly granted monthly maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month,^which requires no interference by this Court. 15. Having regarding to the above discussion, this Court^has no reason to interfere with the well-articulated order passed by

¶41

¶42

¶43

the Trial Court, thereby, the present revision has no merits and liable for dismissal.

¶44

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 26.07.2012 in F.C.M.C.No.2 of 2012

¶45

on the file of the Family Court at Kurnool.

¶46

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed. n

SDI- M RAMESH BABU

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judge, Family Court at Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶53

One CC to Sri. Sodum Anvesha, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

One CC to SRI. Legal Aid, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

One CC to Sri. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Three C.D Copies.

SSL

HIGH COURT

DATED:12/11/2024

ORDER

CRL.RC.No.1775 Of 2012

¶65

o
^ 1 2 FEB 2C?5 I
^ . Current Section . ^

¶66

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED.

¶67

SSL

Kakarla Kasinath, v. Kakarla Suvarna, & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakarla Kasinath, v. Kakarla Suvarna, & 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

The State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad Vs Rama Bhushanam, Nawabpet, Nellore

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Guntur Dist Vs Moparthi Nagamani

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Tummalapalli Srinu and 3 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Damarala Prasanna Lakshmi & 6 Others

Sri Buddi Chandra Mohan, Hyd Vs State of a.P., Rep. by Spl. P.P., Kurnool

M.Radhakrishnareddy Vs State of Ap.