High Court dismissed criminal revision petition challenging maintenance order of Rs 5,000/month. Court held no irreregularities despite dispute over petitioner's salary post-Section 498A case removal.
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, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1392 OF 2010
Between:
M. Rameshchandra Dutt
… PETITIONER
State of Andhra Pradesh and another
… RESPONDENTS
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1392 OF 2010
ORDER:
1. The petitioner is husband of the second respondent. He questions order, dated 14.07.2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rajahmundry, in M.C.No.3 of 2009, granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent. There is no dispute between the parties about the relationship as husband and wife. Admittedly, both the parties are living separately. It is contended by the petitioner that the second respondent herself left his company and
that therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. As the matter now stands, there is no dispute that on report given by the second respondent case was booked against the petitioner and his family members for offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. There is also no dispute that the petitioner filed divorce petition against the second respondent and it is pending. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the petitioner intended to take back the second respondent. Having regard to pendency of the above matters between the parties, there is no possibility of reunion between them.
2. The second respondent contended that she is unable to maintain herself. The petitioner has been working in logistic division of Reliance Company. The petitioner contends that after registration of criminal case under Section 498A I.P.C., he was removed from service. The petitioner did not produce any documents to show removal of himself from service. According to the second respondent, the petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. Since it is a matter, which is within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner, it is for him to prove his salary by filing necessary certificates given by his employer. As against claim of Rs.10,000/- per month, the lower Court granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent. There are no irregularities or illegalities or infirmities in the order passed by the lower Court.
3. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
August 03, 2010 MD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1392 OF 2010
August 03, 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether maintenance should be granted when parties live separately and criminal case pending under Section 498A IPC
Whether removal from service due to Section 498A IPC case affects maintenance liability
M. Rameshchandra Dutt
Anjali Dutt (implied as second respondent)
State of Andhra Pradesh
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
