Petitioner challenged interim maintenance orders. Court found no infirmity in lower court granting interim maintenance to wife and child, deeming quantum not excessive, and dismissed the revision.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Crl.R.C.No.822 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Naviri Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Appala Swamy, R/o. Mirdhi Post, Kalikanagar, BHVP, Visakhapatnam.
PETITIONER
And
1. Naviri Subba Lakshmi, /o. N. Ramesh Kumar, C/o. V. Veera Raju, Railway Quarter No.521/1, Jail Area, Visakhapatnam, and others.
RESPONDENTS
Counsel for petitioner: Sri K. Someswar Kumar
Counsel for Respondents 1: Sri M.S.V.S. Sudha Rani.
Counsel for Respondent No.3: Additional Public Prosecutor.
The Court made the following order:
ORDER:
This revision case is filed by the husband/father questioning granting of interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- p.m. to the first respondent/wife and Rs.1000/- p.m. to the second respondent/child from him. Admittedly both the parties are living separately. The petitioner is working as Assistant Loco Pilot in the Railway Department. In July 2009, his gross pay was Rs.19384/- and net pay was Rs.17420. The wife contends that the petitioner deserted her without any justifiable cause. On the other hand, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that before claiming maintenance, the wife has to prove that the petitioner has neglected to maintain her. After separation, it is not the petitioner’s case that he is supporting the first respondent by sending any amounts to her towards her maintenance and towards maintenance of newly born child. Controversies between the parties resulting in separation will be decided in the main case when oral or documentary evidence of both the parties will be placed before the Court. As the matter now stands, the lower Court having regard to the present facts available on record, rightly granted interim maintenance to respondents 1 and 2. The quantum of interim maintenance granted by the lower Court is in no way excessive. I see no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court.
Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) 21st July, 2010
Js.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower Court's grant of interim maintenance to the wife and child was legally infirm given the present separation.
Whether the quantum of interim maintenance granted by the lower Court was excessive.
Naviri Ramesh Kumar
Naviri Subba Lakshmi
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
