In this criminal petition, the petitioner challenged the maintenance orders granted to his divorced wife and minor daughter. The High Court held that the amounts awarded were adequate given the petitioner's earning capacity, rejecting claims of insufficient income.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.220 OF 2009
DATE:29.07.2010
Between:
Bantu Rajeswar
…… Petitioner.
And: Bantu Lavanya and 2 others.
…..Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.220 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The petitioner is divorced husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent. Both the courts below after considering the entire evidence on record granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor daughter. Since there is divorce between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, there is no question of their reunion. It is stated that the petitioner married another lady and is leading life with his second wife. The 1st respondent is unmarried after divorce.
2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is working in a finance company getting salary of Rs.2,000/- per month as per Ex.B-1 salary certificate filed by him. According to the respondents, the petitioner is a partner in that finance company. Simply because the respondents could not produce any documents to show that the
petitioner is a partner in finance company and that the petitioner has got more income than Rs.2,000/- per month, this Court is not prepared to conclude that the petitioner’s income is only Rs.2,000/- per month. If he had income of Rs.2,000/- only; he would not have married another lady apart from maintaining the respondents 1 and 2 by paying their maintenance amounts. The petitioner is an able bodied male person who can work and earn. It is not as if the alleged work in finance company is whole time work. After all, the amounts of maintenance granted to the respondents 1 and 2 works out at Rs.66/- and Rs.33/- per day respectively. In these days of inflation, the said amounts are nothing but bare minimum. I do not find any error in the orders passed by both the courts below.
3. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
__________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:29.07.2010. Gk.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.220 OF 2009
Date:29.07.2010
Gk.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance amounts awarded by lower courts to the divorced wife and minor daughter were sufficient and correct.
Whether the petitioner's alleged income justifies revising the maintenance orders.
Bantu Rajeswar
Bantu Lavanya
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
