Criminal revision challenging a maintenance order against a wife finding no infirmity in the lower court's decision to grant modest maintenance due to lack of evidence regarding the wife's specific financial loss and the petitioner's unproven income.
Revision petition dismissed; maintenance order dated 18.06.2010 affirmed.
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.1323 of 2010
DATE:21.07.2010
Between:
Allam Nageswara Rao
…… Petitioner/Respondent And:
Allam Srinivasamma and others
…..Respondents
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1323 of 2010
ORDER :
This revision petition is sought to be filed by the husband/father questioning order dated 18.06.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in M.C. No.193 of 2007 granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/per month to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.2,500/- per month to each of the respondents 2 and 3/minor daughters under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As the matter now stands, there is no dispute about relationship of the parties. The petitioner’s counsel fairly stated that the petitioner is questioning maintenance granted to the wife alone in this revision petition and not the maintenance granted to two minor daughters.
2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the wife is doing money lending business with the amount obtained by the petitioner by selling of his only house and that in the cross-examination she admitted as P.W-1 that she filed a case against a third party under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and that it is pending. Filing of case under Section 138 of N.I.Act will shows that she lost money in lending and she did not get back the amount lent by her to the third party. Except that, there is no evidence to show that the 1st respondent/wife has got means to maintain herself. Perhaps for that reason, the lower Court granted lesser amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance.
3) In so far as the petitioner’s means is concerned, according to the respondents 1 to 3, he is having finance business as well as cloth business and he is earning Rs.40,000/- per month. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that no evidence was let in with regard to the businesses and income. According to the petitioner, he is driving an auto after purchasing the same. The amount of maintenance awarded to the wife in this case is Rs.1,000/- per month which works out at Rs.33/- per day. Even an auto driver can afford to pay the said maintenance amount. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court.
4) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
July 21, 2010 KSH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court found any infirmity in the lower court's order granting lower maintenance to the wife due to lack of evidence on her means and the petitioner's income.
Whether the lower court erred in not granting higher maintenance despite the wife's business activities and the petitioner's claimed income.
If the wife's filing of a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act indicated means to maintain herself, affecting maintenance quantum.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Allam Nageswara Rao
Allam Srinivasamma
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
