Revision filed by husband against Family Court order granting maintenance. Court upheld impugned order, setting it aside on grounds of wife's adultery and mutual agreement not to claim future maintenance.
Set aside the lower court order granting maintenance to the wife; dismissed the wife's claim for maintenance pending on the husband's revision.
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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Crl.R.C.No.862 of 2005
ORDER
The present revision is preferred against the order, dated 10.05.2005 passed in M.C.No.45 of 2004 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.
2. The first respondent herein filed M.C.No.45 of 2004 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per month and Rs.2,000/towards legal expenses. During trial, P.Ws1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the first respondent-wife and R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of the petitioner-husband. After considering the entire evidence and the documents, the trial Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to the first respondent towards maintenance from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision.
3. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence of R.W.2, the son of the parties, who categorically stated that his mother was living in adulterous life with one G. Narasimga Rao. He further contended that the trial Court failed to consider the mutual agreement-Ex.B1 as per which the first respondent herself left the matrimonial company of the petitioner and it erred in granting maintenance to her.
5. By the order impugned, the trial Court observed that except the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2, there is no independent evidence against the first respondent that she had been living in adultery and granted maintenance to her. But, the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 shows that the first respondent had illicit intimacy with one G.Nagarasinga Rao and she also admitted the same before a panchayat held by the elders. Further, as per Ex.B1mutual agreement, dated 11.11.1997, there is no relationship between the parties and the first respondent also agreed not to claim any future maintenance from the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that during subsistence of marriage, if the wife lives in adultery or refuses to live with her husband, she is not entitled to maintenance from her husband. In view of the same, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside.
6. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order impugned. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
20th November, 2012 sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a wife is entitled to maintenance if she has been living in adultery during the subsistence of marriage.
Whether the trial Court erred in setting aside the maintenance order in favor of the wife.
Petitioner (Husband)
First Respondent (Wife)
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
