Dismissed

Attili Srinivasa Rao v. Smt.Attili Rajeswari

Telangana HC2 Dec 2014CRLRC/1374/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Revision Bench dismissed two criminal revisions filed by a husband challenging orders allowing his wife to recover arrears of interim maintenance. The Court held that the husband failed to comply with a stay condition by not paying the full required amount by the deadline, leading to an automatic vacation of the stay, and thus the lower court order was sustainable.

What did the court decide?

Both revisions were dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending in the revisions were closed, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the main Original Petition within four months.

Attili Srinivasa Rao Vs Smt.Attili Rajeswari — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1357 AND 1374 OF 2014

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

The Crl.R.C.Nos.1357 and 1374 of 2014 is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the common order dated 09.06.2014 in M.P.No.59 of 2013 and M.P.No.49 of 2014 for execution and recovery pursuant to the order in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2011 dated 26.09.2011 in O.P.No.1503 of 2010 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Vishakapatnam, by the respondenthusband in the said O.P. as well as in Crl.M.P.Nos. 29 of 2011, 59 of 2013 and 49 of 2013 that are filed by his wife. The M.P.59 of 2013 is filed by her under Section 128 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the revision petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance at Rs.3,000/per month as made in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2011 dated 26.09.2011. The M.P.No.49 of 2013 is filed by her to recover the arrears of Rs.49,000/- payable by him towards the interim maintenance as awarded in M.P.No.29 of 2011. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides, held that though the payments go to show that the revision petitioner-husband is paying amounts but they were at his whims and fancies, but not as ordered by the High Court and under those circumstances the interim suspension order passed by the High Court deemed to have been vacated, as the revision petitionerhusband has to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month since 27.12.2010 for a total of Rs.1,14,000/- due by 27.02.2014 and out of which, Rs.83,500/- shall be deducted of what he paid and the balance due comes to Rs.30,500/- as on 27.02.2014 and by 27.06.2014 it is another Rs.3,000/-x 4= Rs.12,000/-, total of which comes to Rs.42,500/- and allowed both the petitions by the common order in directing the revision petitioner-husband to deposit Rs.42,500/- which he should clear in two equal monthly instalments commencing from 27.06.2014 (1^st instalment falls) and

¶4

27.07.2014(2^nd instalment), otherwise he shall be sent to civil prison. It is impugning the same the two revisions are maintained.

¶5

2.The common contentions of the revision petitioner-husband in both the revisions are that the learned judge failed to appreciate that the revision respondent-wife having received the money for so many months, came up with the petition for extracting money without performing the matrimonial obligation, that the learned judge failed to appreciate the fact that the revision respondent-wife having accepted the money in excess belatedly came up with the petition for alleged violation of the orders of this Court. The revision petitioner-husband further submitted during the hearing that his earnings are meagre and he was promptly depositing the amounts, that the learned Judge failed to consider the amounts paid by the revision petitionerhusband on 12.12.2011 though Demand Drafts No. 3658 for Rs.10,000/- and wrongly come to the conclusion and gave verdict against the revision petitioner-husband without there being any jurisdiction, that the learned Judge ought to have directed the revision respondent-wife to seek clarification from the High Court as the trial Judge cannot sit over for interpretation of the High Court orders and hence to set aside the common orders dated 09.06.2014 in M.P.No.59 of 2013 and M.P.No.49 of 2013.

¶6

3. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision 1^st respondent(wife of revision petitioner) that there are no merits in the revision cases to sit against the well considered common order of the trial judge and hence to dismiss the same.

¶7

4. Heard and perused the material placed on record. The parties herein after are referred as they were arrayed in M.P.Nos.59 of 2013 and M.P.No.49 of 2013 by the trial Court as petitioner-wife and respondent-husband for sake of convenience.

¶8

5. Now the common points that arise for consideration in both the revisions are:

¶9

1. Whether the impugned common orders dt.09.06.2014 in M.P.Nos.59 of 2013 and 49 of 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Vishakapatnam, are unsustainable, if so with what observations?

¶10

2. To what result?

¶11

Point No.1:

¶12

6. The relationship between the parties and the order made in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2011,dated 26.09.2011 in the pending O.P.No.1503 of 2010 and the revision filed against said order in M.P.No.29 of 2011 in Crl.R.C.No.2281 of 2011 and the interim order of stay granted therein Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3428 of 2011 dated 07.11.2011 subject to payment of half of the amount and to clear the arrears by 30.12.2011 not in dispute; but for the dispute on the executability of the order in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2011 dated 26.09.2011 by virtue of the order in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3428 of 2011 saying the same has been complied with and there are no arrears and as such the M.P.Nos.49 and 59 of 2014 won’t lie and the trial Judge did not properly consider those aspects. In deciding the same, it is important to note how far said order is in compliance. For that the calculation memo filed by the revision petitioner-husband in both the revisions is one and the same and the same is as follows:-

¶13

Sl.No.	Date	Amount Rs. Ps.
1	28-12-2011	10,000/-
2	12-04-2012	15,500/-
3	25-06-2012	18,500/-
4	07-07-2012	1,500/-
5	16-08-2012	1,500/-
6	04-09-2012	1,500/-
7	15-10-2012	1,500/-
8	05-11-2012	1,500/-

¶14

9	14-06-2013	18,500/-
10	10-08-2013	3,000/-
11	18-10-2013	3,000/-
12	15-01-2014	3,000/-
13	15-03-2014	3,000/-
14	04-04-2014	1,500/-
15	25-06-2014	21,250/-
16	28-07-2014	21,250/-
17	01-09-2014	3,000/-
	Total	1,29,000/-

¶15

7. Out of the said amount, the last three items(15 to 17) viz., payment of Rs.21,250/- on each occasion on 25.06.2014 and 28.07.2014 and Rs.3,000/- on 01.09.2014 are the payments subsequent to the impugned common order of the trial Judge, dated 09.06.2014 undisputedly. If and when such is the case, and among the items 2 to 14, all the 13 payments are clearly reflected in para-10 of the common order of the learned Family Judge, now impugning in the revisions. So far as the first item is concerned, as mentioned in the impugned common order paras-8 and 9, the M.P.No.29 of 2011 order granting interim maintenance was dated 26.09.2011 to pay Rs.3,000/- since 27.12.2010. Thus by the date of said order on 26.09.2011, the respondent-husband to the Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2011 was to pay for the 9 months total of Rs.27,000/- whereas, what he paid is shown in item No.1 supra on 28.12.2011 was only Rs.10,000/- but not even half of the amount that comes to Rs.13,500/- pursuant to the compliance of the order of the High Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3428 of 2011, dated 07.11.2011 to pay by 30.12.2011. From the above so far as one year at the rate of Rs.1,500/p.m. pursuant to the High Court order in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3428 of 2011 dated 07.11.2011 concerned, for one year from 27.12.2010 as per the direction of the High Court to pay arrears by 30.12.2011, it is Rs.18,000/- undisputedly. From the calculation memo, the payments commencing from Sl.No.2 of

¶16

Rs.15,500/- was dated 12.04.2012 and noting by end of December,2011. Therefrom, it was held by the learned trial Judge that the order passed in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3428 of 2011 supra was not complied with and violated and that the subsequent payments will not revive the order in view of the very order of the High Court speaks that in default, interim suspension stands vacated. It is not even the case of the revision petitioner-husband that he obtained any order for extension of time to pay the arrears. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that if at all there is any doubt the petitionerwife of Crl.M.P.No.59 and 49 of 2014 should have been driven to approach the High Court for clarification instead of saying the High Court order in Crl.R.C.M.P.No. 3428 of 2011 not complied with. The said contention is untenable and baseless as the very order of the High Court is crystal clear an automatic vacation of the stay for any non-compliance and it is for him if at all choose to seek for extension of time and he neither paid within the time stipulated nor complied as required pursuant to the order. Thus, he cannot take advantage in saying the order benefit still available to him much less to contend non-executability of the order in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2011 dated 26.09.2011 to recover interim maintenance at Rs.3,000/- p.m. When such is the case, when the applications are filed by the wife, the order was properly passed by the Court below, there is nothing to interfere for this Court while sitting in revisions. It is needless to say the payments covered by serial numbers 15 to 17 can be given deduction equally any of the further payments to pay the arrears for executability. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

¶17

Point No.2:

¶18

8. In the result, both the revisions are dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these two revisions shall stand closed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the main O.P.No.1503 of 2010 by giving preference at least within

¶19

four months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶20

___________________________

¶21

___________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, Date:02.12.2014. vvr

Attili Srinivasa Rao v. Smt.Attili Rajeswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Attili Srinivasa Rao v. Smt.Attili Rajeswari

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

Sri G. Sadanand Vs Sri A.N. Bal Chandher

M.Muthu, Vs Smt. Padmavathi

J.Mohammad , G.Mohammad Rafi Vs D.Sulai Baba

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs N. Laxman

Sadanapati Malleshwari Vs The State of Ap.

n. Laxman, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation