The court disposed of a criminal revision challenging the award of monthly maintenance to a wife. After noting the husband's claim of financial dependence on his brothers, the High Court reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 2,000/-.
The maintenance amount awarded is reduced from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.2087 of 2010
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in M.C.No.328 of 2008 dated 11.10.2010 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.
The petitioner herein married the 1st respondent herein on 03.07.2006 after receiving dowry, jehez articles and gold articles and that after the marriage he started ill-treating and harassing the 1st respondent for additional dowry. A child was also born to them. However, the petitioner neglected the welfare of the 1st respondent and the child. Since the 1st respondent is unable to maintain herself and she is living in the house of her parents, she filed the aforesaid M.C.No.328 of 2008 seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month from the petitioner herein. The trial Court, having considered the entire evidence available on record, awarded monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- to the 1st respondent-wife herein from the date of the order. Questioning the said order, the petitioner herein preferred the present revision.
Heard both sides and perused the impugned order. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, held that the petitioner-husband has deserted and neglected the 1st respondent-wife even though he has got sufficient means to maintain her and accordingly granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- to the 1st respondent-wife herein. In these hard
days, the said amount of maintenance is not sufficient to meet both ends. The trial Court was justified in awarding the said amount. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court.
However, as it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is depending on his brothers and others for his maintenance, the amount of maintenance of Rs.2,500/- as awarded by the trial Court is reduced to Rs.2,000/- on the same terms and conditions imposed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
_______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)
07.03.2011 Gsn.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the monthly maintenance awarded by the trial court was appropriate given the petitioner's claim of financial dependence.
Whether the impugned order awarding Rs. 2,500/- per month required interference in the interests of justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
1st Respondent-Wife
Gopalakrishna Tamada
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
