A criminal revision petition was dismissed against an order granting Rs. 2,000 per month maintenance to a wife. The court held the petitioner has capacity but is neglecting maintenance, as the wife's own income was unproven.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed, upholding the lower court's order for maintenance.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1312 of 2010
DATE:02.08.2010
Between:
M.Sigamani Vijayarao @ Jashuva …… Petitioner And:
Tella Jahnavi and another
…..Respondents
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1312 of 2010
ORDER :
The petitioner who is husband of the 1st respondent seeks to file this revision petition against order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ongole in M.C. No.76 of 2008 granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. There is no dispute about both the parties living separately. There is no dispute about the wife instituting prosecution against the petitioner for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. etc., According to the 1st respondent/wife, she was harassed for the sake of additional dowry and was driven out of the family house. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that the 1st respondent has voluntarily left the family house and that therefore she is not entitled for maintenance. Though a notice is stated to have been given
by the petitioner to the 1st respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner did not file any petition before any Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
2) According to the 1st respondent, she is unable to maintain herself. Even though the petitioner alleged that the 1st respondent is working as clerk in an English medium private school earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the petitioner could not prove the said fact. P.W-1 denied the same. Therefore, this Court finds that the 1st respondent is unable to maintain herself. Admittedly the petitioner has been working as lecturer in a college at Chennai. It is stated that because of filing of the case under Section 498-A I.P.C, the petitioner had lost his job. The petitioner did not produce any documents to prove the alleged loss of his job. It is stated that apart from income from his job, the petitioner has got substantive immovable properties at Avadi of Chennai. Therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner who has got capacity to maintain the 1st respondent, is refusing and neglecting to maintain her. The amount of Rs.2,000/- per month granted by the lower Court towards maintenance is bare minimum. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court.
3) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
August 2, 2010 KSH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's order granting maintenance when the petitioner claims the wife left voluntarily.
Whether the petitioner has the capacity to maintain his wife given his employment and immovable properties.
Whether the petitioner is neglecting to maintain his wife in view of the circumstances.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M. Sigamani Vijayarao @ Jashuva
Tella Jahnavi
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
