Partly allowed

Shaik Mohammad Jafer v. Shaik Jasmin

Telangana HC7 Mar 2011CRLRC/1964/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court modified the maintenance amount awarded to the wife and child of the petitioner. The court noted the petitioner's employment as a foreman but, due to lack of evidence on the respondents' needs, reduced the total monthly maintenance from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 2,500.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance awarded to the wife and child was modified from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- per month.

Shaik Mohammad Jafer Vs Shaik Jasmin — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1964 OF 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

1 The respondents 1 & 2 herein who are none other than the wife and child of the petitioner filed M.C.No.59 of 2006 under section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the first respondent (wife) and Rs.1,000/- to the second respondent (child). The trial court having considered the evidence placed on record allowed the said case and awarded maintenance to the respondents 1 & 2 as prayed for. The same is questioned by the husband by filing this revision before this curt and this court while ordering notice before admission granted interim suspension of the order dated 23.08.2010 passed in the said M.C.No.59 of 2006 on condition of the petitioner depositing the entire arrears of maintenance within a period of six weeks from that day i.e. 31.01.2011 and further continue to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- p.m. to both the respondents put together. Though notices are served on them, the respondents have not chosen to put in their appearance.

¶4

2 Heard.

¶5

3 Apparently the petitioner is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and is working as foreman in Krebs Bio Chemicals Limited. Though a suggestion on behalf of the respondents was made to the effect that he is getting a total salary of Rs.50,000/- p.m. the same was denied. When once it is established that the petitioner is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and is working as foreman in Krebs Bio Chemicals Limited, it can safely be presumed that he has sufficient means to pay.

¶6

4 As the relationship between the parties is not in dispute, and the husband has an obligation to maintain the wife and child, this court is f the view that the court below is justified in awarding maintenance. However, as there is no assistance on behalf of the respondents, this court is of the view that the said amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rs.2,000 + Rs.1,000) may be modified and the petitioner shall pay a total amount of Rs.2,500/- towards maintenance to both the respondents. Excepting the said modification, in all other aspects, this revision stands dismissed.

¶7

_____________ 7^th March 2011

¶8

Kvsn

Shaik Mohammad Jafer v. Shaik Jasmin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Mohammad Jafer v. Shaik Jasmin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanaparthy Ram Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanaparthy Ram Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Karukonda Archana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Pawan Kalyan, Vs D.Kiran Kumar

Doddapaneni Koteswari Vs Mannava Prabhu Das

Shaik Sajid Saleen Vs Asia Begum