The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition questioning an order enhancing maintenance from Rs.300 to Rs.500 per month. The Court held the enhanced amount was not excessive given the cost of living and the lower order was not susceptible to interference. The revision was dismissed.
The criminal revision case was 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 GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.126 of 2004
JUDGMENT:
The respondents herein filed M.C.No.26 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu, against the petitioner herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- to the first respondent and Rs.150/- each to respondents 2 to 4, who are the wife and the children of the respondent herein respectively. The Court below after analysing the entire evidence on record, awarded the said maintenance. Subsequently, the petitioners herein filed a petitionCrl.M.P.No.2517 of 2002 in the said M.C., under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking to enhance the said maintenance and the same was allowed by the Court below by an order, dated 27.10.2003, enhancing the said maintenance from Rs.300/- per month to Rs.500/- per month to the first respondent and also enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.150/- per month to Rs.500/- per month to each of respondents 1 and 2. The said order, dated 27.10.2003 is questioned in this Criminal Revision Case.
This Court while admitting this Criminal Revision Case on 03.02.2004, passed the following order: -
“Interim suspension subject to condition that the petitioner pays maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.300/- per month to each o the respondents i.e., to his wife and three children from October, 2003 to February, 2004, by the end of February 2004 and also deposit the maintenance at the said rate from March 2004 onwards by 5th of every succeeding month.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the said enhancement of the maintenance amount made by the Court below cannot be said to be excessive. In these hard days even the said amount is not sufficient to meet the bare necessities of life. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 17th February 2011 DR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the enhancement of maintenance awarded by the Court below warrants interference in a criminal revision petition?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Petitioner
The Respondents
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
