Disposed

Sri T.Surya Satish Goud, v. Smt.T.,P.Dharanija

Telangana HC12 Aug 2013CRP/2532/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in civil revision held that an interim order passed in a criminal bail proceeding is not binding for determining interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court order was set aside for not recording evidence or considering relevant factors.

What did the court decide?

Order of Family Court granting interim maintenance was set aside; case remanded to consider application afresh after evidence within four weeks.

Sri T.Surya Satish Goud, Vs Smt.T.,P.Dharanija — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2532 and 2739 OF 2013

¶3

Date: 12.08.2013

¶4

C.R.P. No.2532 of 2013

¶5

Between: Sri T.Surya Satish Goud And Smt. T. P. Between: Smt. T. P. Dharanija And Sri T.Surya Satish

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

C.R.P. No.2739 of 2013

¶9

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No.2532 AND 2739 OF 2013

¶11

COMMON ORDER:

¶12

Both the revision petitions are directed against the order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad in I.A. No.47 of 2013 in F.C.O.P. No.220 of 2012. The parties to these revision petitions are the husband and wife,

¶13

and out of the wedlock a male child was born to them who is stated to be aged about eight years. For the sake of convenience the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as husband and wife.

¶14

The main O.P. No.220 of 2012 is filed by the husband under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce. Pending the O.P., the wife filed I.A. No.47 of 2013 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month for maintenance of herself and child. She also claimed a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards legal expenses. By the order under revision the Court below allowed the application in part and granted interim maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month apart from education expenses to the minor son. The operative portion of said order reads as under:

¶15

1) the respondent-husband is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m to the petitioner– wife and her minor son on or before 10^th of every month commencing from April 2013 through on line banking services to the petitioner’s bank account, the details of which are directed to be furnished by the petitioner within one week from the date of this order.

¶16

2) The respondent-husband is directed to meet the entire educational expenditure of his minor son T. Suryaansh Goud and he should reimburse the entire educational expenditure of T.Suryaansh Goud as and when the petitioner-wife produce the necessary documentary evidence for their reimbursement by the respondent-husband i.e., to say the respondenthusband has to reimburse the educational expenditure of T.Suryaansh Goud which was incurred by the petitioner-wife and this expenditure includes the school fee paid for sports and games etc., activities.

¶17

3) with regard to the legal expenses, they are fixed at Rs.30,000/- payable by the respondent-husband in three equal installments i.e. after filing of the counter by the respondent-wife, after evidence of both sides is adduced and the last instalment after submitting arguments by both sides.

¶18

Aggrieved by the said order the husband filed C.R.P. No.2532 of

¶19

2013 contending that the Court below has grossly erred in granting the maintenance without taking into consideration any one of the relevant factors as required by law.

¶20

The very same order is assailed in C.R.P. No.2739 of 2013 filed by the wife contending that the interim maintenance awarded by the Court below is not commensurate with the income, standard of living and lifestyle of the husband, and that it is grossly inadequate to meet the expenses of the wife and minor son.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for both parties.

¶22

As could be seen from the material available on record the wife had earlier lodged a criminal complaint against the husband for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 323 of C.P.C and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The same was registered as Cr.No.56/2012 on the file of the Police Station, Women Protection Cell, Begumpet. When the husband filed Crl.P. No.4365 of 2012 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before this Court seeking anticipatory bail, pending the said petition this Court passed an interim order as under:

¶23

“Heard.

¶24

The petitioner is a practicing advocate and presently, he is working as a Government Pleader in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. According to his wife, Respondent No.2 herein, the petitioner has acted in TV serials also. They have a minor son aged about 8 years. According to the petitioner, he has been paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife and also meeting the educational expenditure of his son. Respondent No.2 submits that she is living in a rented portion and paying Rs.6,500/- per month towards its rent and she is unable to provide basic needs to his son with the remaining amount.

¶25

Having regard to the status of parties, standard of living and the present day cost of living and keeping in view the welfare of the child, I consider it just and appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) per month to his

¶26

wife and minor child for their maintenance, besides meeting the educational expenditure of his son. Post the matter as part heard on 08-08-2012. Meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of arrest of the petitioner. I hope and trust that both the parties would settle the matter amicably in the interest of their minor child.”

¶27

As could be seen, the order under revision came to be passed merely on the basis of the above said order dated 28.05.2012 passed by this Court observing that the said order is binding.

¶28

Having carefully gone through the material available on record, it appears to me that the order dated 28.05.2012 came to be passed by this Court as an interim measure hoping that both parties would settle the matter amicably in the interest of their minor child.

¶29

The law is well settled that while considering an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance, the Court has to take into account the status and income of the opposite party and also to see whether the petitioner has sufficient independent income to lead a reasonable life, the cost of living and the welfare of the child etc.

¶30

However, absolutely no evidence was produced before the Court below by either of the parties and as noticed above the order under revision came to be passed merely on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court dated 28.05.2012 in Crl.P.No.4365 of 2012.

¶31

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to me that the interim order dated 28.05.2012 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4365 of 2012 cannot be treated as a precedent and it is not binding on the competent Court having jurisdiction to consider the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the Court below ought to have considered the application for interim maintenance independently taking into account the relevant aspects which are held to be essential for grant of interim maintenance.

¶32

Since the Court below failed to do so, the order under revision is hereby set aside and the revision petitions are disposed of, with a

¶33

direction to the Court below to consider I.A. No.47 of 2013 afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the both parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to mention that the parties are at liberty to produce the necessary evidence, if any, to substantiate their respective claims.

¶34

Accordingly, both the revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed.

¶35

____________ G.ROHINI, J Date: 12.08.2013 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow (B/O) MVA

Sri T.Surya Satish Goud, v. Smt.T.,P.Dharanija

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T.Surya Satish Goud, v. Smt.T.,P.Dharanija

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt K. Rani Prasanna Vs P.Murthy

T.Srisailam Reddy, Vs Syed Ziauddin Ahmed

Ayesha Rizwana Vs Mushtaq Ahmed

Smt. T.P. Dharanija Vs Sri T. Surya Satish Goud

Abisetti Asha Latha , K Asha Latha Vs Abisetti Venkat Rao

Shaik Massod Ali Vs Smt. Ahmedi Begum