Remanded

Tirupathi Stevenson v. Tirupathi Sarika , K. Sarika

Telangana HC3 Dec 2014CRLRC/1620/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the Court quashed an ex parte maintenance order awarded against a non-present husband on unchallenged evidence. The matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh hearing where both parties could present evidence. Interim maintenance was awarded pending the disposal of the revised case within three months.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte order set aside; case remanded for fresh evidence by both parties; interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/month awarded pending disposal.

Tirupathi Stevenson Vs Tirupathi Sarika , K. Sarika — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1620 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C by the respondent of the maintenance case having been aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2014 in M.C.No.3 of 2013 filed by the respondents herein seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 1^st petitioner therein-wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the 2^nd and 3^rd respectively(2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are minors represented by 1^st petitioner) on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, Guntur district.

¶4

2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1^st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and her marriage was solemnized on 21.12.1995 at Luthern Church in Sattenapalli of Guntur district and they lived happily for about six months only that out of their wedlock, they were blessed with 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners later the respondent addicted to bad vices and developed dislike towards 1^st petitioner and he harassed her by not providing food and coming to home late nights in a drunken state for which the mediations held failed, that the respondent married another lady second time and the petitioners have no capacity to maintain themselves and the 1^st petitioner’s health is not permitting her to do any type of work and she is sometimes starved for food. On the other hand, the respondent is doing commission business and he earns of Rs.3,00,000/p.a. besides having liquid cash of Rs.20,00,000/-, house and valuable house sites and he is leading luxurious life and he has capacity to maintain the petitioners, that nobody is dependant upon him except petitioners. The respondent filed counter denying all the allegations except their wedlock and petitioners 2 and 3 born to them and further contentions that the 1^st petitioner is having movable and immovable

¶5

properties and is having joint share in her parents’ properties and she is also earning Rs.500/- per day out of tailoring work and so maintaining herself and the petitioners, that since the 1^st petitioner is voluntarily deserted the respondent, he is not liable to pay maintenance.

¶6

3.During course of enquiry from the 1^st petitioner was attending and the respondent was not attending, the absence petition to condone the respondent’s absence was dismissed and the respondent was set ex parte and from the 1^st petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and proved her case, allowed the M.C.No.3 of 2013 directing the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- to the 1^st petitioner and Rs.1,500/- each per month to the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners respectively from the date of filing of the petition and further directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards legal expenses.

¶7

4. Impugning the said order, the respondent filed this revision with the contentions in the grounds of revision that the trial Court’s order is vitiated by material irregularity and resulted in failure of justice, that the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under law or exercised it with material irregularity, that the findings given by the trial Court are contrary to the evidence available on record, that the trial Court failed to examine the document filed by the appellant a ration card where it clearly established that the respondent wife has already married to another person and she is leading happy married wife with her second husband, that respondent has filed petition for maintenance after a gap of 8 years only to harass the appellant, that the appellant has clearly stated in his counter that he is daily wage worker and he is earning Rs.100/- per day, hence to set aside the order of the trial Court. Whereas, it is the contention of learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3,the petitioners in M.C.No.3 of 2013 that there is nothing to interfere with the maintenance awarded by the trial Court by sitting in revision against it including on the quantum.

¶8

Hence, to dismiss the revision.

¶9

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶10

6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

¶11

1. Whether the impugned order dated 06.05.2014 in M.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, Guntur district, is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court while sitting in revision, if so, with what observations?

¶12

2. To what result?

¶13

Point No.1:

¶14

7. Undisputedly, there is only exparte order of maintenance from respondent even filed counter and contesting for his absence and by dismissing the application filed on his behalf to condone the absence, set exparte and the unchallenged and self-serving testimony of the M.C.1^st petitioner as P.W.1 taken consideration in awarding maintenance though there is of contest from the respondent including in saying he is not a businessman and earning by cooli work or she is earning from tailoring besides having properties from her parents and according to her he married another woman and living with her and according to him she married another man and living with him and those are to be adjudicated thereby it requires to remand the matter to the trial Court by directing the lower Court to permit both the parties to lead fresh evidence ignoring the exparte evidence of P.W.1 earlier taken consideration and in the meantime by awarding Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/p.m. to the each of the two children as interim maintenance by modifying the order of maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to the 1^st petitioner and Rs.1,500/each to the petitioners 2 and 3 total of Rs.5,500/- to Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the M.C.No.3 of 2013. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

¶15

Point No.2:

¶16

8. The revision is disposed of remanding the matter by affording

¶17

opportunity to the parties to contest by directing the lower Court to permit both the parties to lead fresh evidence ignoring the ex parte evidence of P.W.1 earlier taken consideration and in the meantime by awarding Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/-p.m. to the each of the two children as interim maintenance by modifying the order of maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to the 1^st petitioner and Rs.1,500/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3 total of Rs.5,500/- to Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the M.C. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the MC by giving preference at any cost within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The MC-respondent(revision petitioner) has to pay all arrears within two months, else to execute and recover. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision, shall stand closed.

¶18

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶19

Dt.03.12.2014. vvr

Tirupathi Stevenson v. Tirupathi Sarika , K. Sarika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirupathi Stevenson v. Tirupathi Sarika , K. Sarika

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

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs N. Laxman

Sadanapati Malleshwari Vs The State of Ap.

Attili Srinivasa Rao Vs Smt.Attili Rajeswari

M. Ravikanth Reddy Vs Smt. M. Divya , Vijaya Kumari

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs P.S. Satyanarayana

Smt. K.Kamalamma Vs Sri B.Ramachandraiah