Criminal Bench under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed a petition seeking to quash or enhance maintenance awards made under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that the petitioners failed to substantiate the claim of income increase with legal evidence.
Petition dismissed; maintenance amounts awarded by lower courts remain intact.
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 C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3993 OF 2008
ORDER:
1. This is a Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the order in M.C. No.51 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, which was confirmed in Crl.R.P.No.52 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.
2. The petitioners herein are the wife and minor son of the 1st respondent. They along with their daughter filed M.C.No.51 of 2004 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- each per month towards their maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. It is alleged that the 1st petitioner married the 1st respondent on 04.10.1984 at Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Tirumala as per Hindu Rites and Customs. They both lived together happily for a period of one year in Chennai, during which period, the respondent No.1 underwent training at Chennai. Thereafter they shifted to Nellore and lived together till 1998. The 1st petitioner gave birth to one Deepthi on 09.01.1987 and to the 2nd petitioner herein on 19.06.1994 through the 1st respondent and lived together till 1994 at Nellore. Later, the 1st respondent is alleged to have developed intimacy with one Lalitha, who is an employee in the office of RDO, Nellore and the 1st respondent started neglecting the petitioners. At the intervention of the parents of the 1st petitioner, the 1st respondent has been paying Rs.3,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner till December, 2003 and stopped paying the same from January, 2004. Since the attitude of the 1st respondent changed and he was not even visiting the petitioners, a legal notice was issued on 15.07.2004, for which a reply was also received with false allegations. The 1st petitioner also lodged a report with Mahila Police Station at Nellore, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.25 of 2004
against the 1st respondent and said Lalitha. Stating that the 1st respondent herein is earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the present M.C. was filed claiming maintenance.
3. The 1st respondent filed his counter in the M.C. disputing the marriage with the 1st petitioner. Thus, he contends that the petitioners are not entitled for any maintenance.
4. In support of their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and the respondents examined RWs.1 and 2.
5. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.1,250/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.750/- to the 2nd petitioner herein. However, the claim of Deepthi, who was the 2nd petitioner in the M.C. was dismissed on the ground that she attained majority.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.52 of 2007. By an order dt.30.11.2007, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition confirming the findings given in M.C. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking enhancement of the maintenance.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
8. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 is now working as a Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute (Boys), Venkateshwarapuram, Nellore and earning nearly Rs.30,000/- per month and as such she seeks enhancement of the maintenance.
9. Even in the grounds of petition, there is no reference to respondent No.1 working as a Principal and earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. On the other hand, it is specifically stated that he is a Government employee getting a salary of Rs.16,000/- to Rs.17,000/- per month. The
plea, which is sought to be canvassed for enhancement of maintenance could not be substantial by any legal evidence. In view of the fact that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence on record and awarded the amount as indicated above, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the said orders would not arise. Further the question of looking into the evidence also will not arise as the plea taken by the petitioners was not based on any evidence on record. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
Date: 25-04-2013 MR
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3993 OF 2008
Date: 25-04-2013
MR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. warrants quashing of maintenance orders in absence of substantial evidence for enhancement.
Whether the petitioner has discharged the onus of proving increased earning of respondent to claim enhancement of maintenance.
Whether the Courts below appreciated evidence correctly in fixing maintenance amounts.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Wife of 1st Respondent
Minor Son of 1st Respondent
1st Respondent
C. Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
