Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC3 Dec 2014CRLRC/1686/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against a trial court order in a Domestic Violence case, the High Court clarified liability for maintenance and rent. It held the husband pays Rs.8,000/month for maintenance and an additional Rs.5,000/month for rent post-eviction, directing him to pay calculated arrears.

What did the court decide?

Husband directed to pay share of Rs.8,000/- for maintenance and Rs.5,000/- for rental accommodation. Arrears amounting to Rs.62,000/- to be paid within one month or recovered by execution.

M. Ravikanth Reddy Vs Smt. M. Divya , Vijaya Kumari — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1686 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the Revision petitioners(Respondents 1 to 3-husband and parents-in-law of the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.550 of 2014 as well as in DVC No.10 of 2009), having been aggrieved by the order, dated 28.07.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.550 of 2014 in DVC No.10 of 2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Courtcum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar.

¶5

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-wife filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.550 of 2014 under Section 125(3) read with Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act,2005 praying to direct 1^st respondent-husband to pay an amount of Rs.4,60,000/- to her as house rent from 31.07.2006 to 02.03.2013 (date of petition) and to punish her husband (1^st respondent) in case of his failure to pay the said amount. The respondent-husband filed counter for himself and also on behalf of his parents-respondents 2 and 3 that he is paying a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance of petitioner-wife and minor child in compliance of the orders passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.112 of 2010 and 2^nd respondent-mother-in-law of petitioner is paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards residential accommodation and rent in compliance of the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in ASMP No.2795 of 2012 in ASMP No.2352 of 2012 in A.S.No.802 of 2012 dated 10.04.2013, totaling to a sum of Rs.18,000/per month regularly and there are no dues as on the date of filing his counter.

¶6

3. The trial Court’s impugned order reads that as per the

¶7

petitioner she is entitled to Rs.3,000/- towards her maintenance, Rs.5,000/- towards the maintenance of minor child, Rs.5,000/- towards rent from the date of filing the main DVC case, that as per the orders of the High Court in A.S.M.P.No.2795 of 2012, the respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the date of eviction of the petitioner from the premises of 2^nd respondent. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that he is paying maintenance at Rs.8,000/- p.m. (Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- to the minor child) as per the orders of the appellate Court and now he is ready to pay the amount at Rs.10,000/- p.m. towards the rent to the petitioner from the date of her eviction from the premises of 2^nd respondent till date as ordered in A.S.M.P.No.2795 of 2012. The trial Court from the rival contentions observed that admittedly, 2^nd respondent(mother-in-law of the DVC petitioner) filed a suit for eviction before the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district in O.S.No.1824 of 2006 and obtained decree for eviction of the petitioner herein from her house and the petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court. Subsequently, she was evicted from the premises owned by 2^nd respondent herein(pursuant to the order in ASMP No.2795 of 2012).

¶8

3-b. For better appreciation, the learned trial Judge reproduced the reliefs granted by that Court, Appellate Court and the Honble High Court of A.P. as follows:-

¶9

DVC No.10/2009:

¶10

a) The 1^st respondent is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner and her daughter towards their maintenance including educational and medical expenses of her daughter from the date of this order as per Section 20(1)(d) of protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the said amount shall be paid to the petitioner directly by obtaining a valid receipt or acknowledgment from her on or before 10^th day of every succeeding month,

¶11

(b) The petition against respondent Nos.2and 3 is hereby

¶12

dismissed.

¶13

D.V.Crl. Appeal No.112 of 2010:

¶14

a) the 1^st respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/towards rent for the separate residential accommodation of the petitioner and her daughter from the date of her removal from the possession of the house wherein she is residing which belongs to 2^nd respondent in case that the suit filed by 2^nd respondent is decreed.

¶15

b) the 1^st respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/(Rupees three thousand only) towards separate maintenance to his wife and a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards separate maintenance and educational and medical expenses of daughter Kum.Samhitha from the date of the petition respectively.

¶16

3-c. Without explaining to this Court as to how she came to calculation at Rs.4,60,000/- towards the relief of rent, in para-9 of the petition, the petitioner has stated “I submit that the respondent/1^st respondent is liable to pay an amount of Rs.4,60,000/-(four lakhs sixty thousand only) from 31.07.2006 to .03.2013, if fails to pay the said amount to punish the respondent/1^st respondent in the interest of justice.”

¶17

3-d. The trial Court further held that it received the orders of the High Court in Crl.R.C.No.1085 of 2013 on 03.07.2014 i.e. four months after filing of this petition (Crl.M.P.No.550 of 2014) and on the next day of hearing i.e. on 16.07.2014 only the Court had an opportunity to follow the directions of the High Court. The High Court observed that ‘since the present revision is filed by the petitioner questioning the orders passed by the Courts below and also for enhancement of maintenance, the controversy is clarified by directing the 1^st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner in addition to Rs.5,000/- already awarded by the trial court and Rs.10,000/- ordered by the Division Bench of the trial Court in A.S.M.P.No.2795 of 2012 in

¶18

A.S.M.P.No.2352 of 2012 in A.S.No.802 of 2012”.

¶19

3-e. At the end of the of para-15 of the Judgment, the High Court extracted the order in vacate stay petition filed by the petitioner herein vide ASMP No.2795 of 2012, which is as follows:-

¶20

“…… Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order dated 03.10.2012 in ASMP No.2352 of 2012 is vacated. It is directed that in case, the appellant vacates and delivers the vacant possession of the property to the 1^st respondent, within eight weeks from today, the latter shall be under obligation to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, towards expenditure that may be incurred by commencing from the month, in which the possession is delivered. This arrangement shall be subject to the result of the appeal and without prejudice to the rights of the parties.”

¶21

The High Court keeping in view of the orders passed on 29.11.2003 in C.A.No.795 of 2013 in C.C.No.1606 of 2013 with regard to the eviction of the petitioner from the property of 2^nd respondent, observed that “In view of the orders passed by this Court, the question of ranting residential order in favour of the petitioner would not arise. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court took sympathetic view and ordered the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards accommodation. That being the position, the main relief which is sought for in the present petition is liable to be rejected.”

¶22

3-f. At the end of para No.16, the Hon’ble High Court gave findings that “ Since both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that there was no harassment on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 and in view of the findings arrived at with regard to the residence claimed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act, I am of the view that there are no merits in the revision and the same is disposed of by clarifying the order to the extent indicated above”.

¶23

3-g. The trial Court further held that, “with great respect to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., this Court is of the view that the Hon’ble High Court enhanced the maintenance amount directing the 1^st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- as awarded by the appellate Court in addition to Rs.5,000/- already awarded by the trial

¶24

Court and that the main relief which was sought for in the revision is liable to be rejected.”

¶25

3-h. The trial Court further held that the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rs.3,000/- towards the maintenance of the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance of the minor child) and Rs.5,000/- as enhanced and clarified by the High Court, the petitioner is at liberty to recover the amount of Rs.10,000/- as ordered in ASMP No.2795 of 2012 in a separate proceedings, that in the present petition, the petitioner failed to explain as to how she calculated the amount towards the rent, her plea is that she is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the rent as ordered by the appellate Court. According to the memo of petitioner, dated 05.06.2014, respondent is due to pay a sum of Rs.3,16,000/- till the month of May,2014, that the date of filing the main case is 16.06.2009 the total months from 16.06.2009 till 15.07.2014 are 61 months. The respondent is due to pay Rs.13,000/-per month (Rs.3,000/-+Rs.5,000/-+ Rs.5,000/-), amounting to Rs.7,93,000/- and now the respondent is due to pay a sum of Rs.3,29,000/(Rs.7,93,000-(minus) Rs.4,64,000/-). On 23.07.2014, the respondent filed a statement in proof of payments made by him mentioning the demand draft numbers. According to him, he paid a total sum of Rs.5,01,000/- excluding the payments of Rs.10,000/- to be paid in Civil Appeal and he is due to pay Rs.2,92,000/-(Rs.7,93,000/- -(minus) Rs.5,01,000/-). After receiving the order of the High Court the respondent did not pay the enhanced amount of Rs.5,000/- which comes to Rs.3,05,000/-(61 months x Rs.5,000/-). Further he did not pay the earlier maintenance of Rs.8,000/- for the period from 16.04.2014 to 15.07.2014. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.3,29,000/- as on 15.07.2014. On the last date of adjournment, the respondent undertaken to pay the due amount according to him, but failed to appear before the Court, hence ordered issuance of warrant to produce him before the Court to hear about the payment and posted

¶26

the matter to 08.08.2014.

¶27

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents of the Crl.M.P.No.550 of 2014 preferred this revision with the contentions that the orders passed by the trial Court is contrary to the orders passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No.1085 of 2013, that the trial court failed to appreciate that the DVC No.10 of 2009 filed by the 1^st respondent was disposed with a direction to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent and her daughter, however, the same was challenged by way of appeal by the 1^st respondent herein in Crl.Appeal No.112 of 2010, the said appeal was allowed by enhancing to Rs.3,000/- towards separate maintenance to the 1^st respondent herein and Rs.5,000/- towards separate maintenance, education and medical expenses for 1^st respondent’s daughter from the date of petition, and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards rent for separate residence from the date, the 1^st respondent is removed from the possession by way of decree. Accordingly decree in O.S.No.1824 of 2006 was passed in favour of the mother-in-law (2^nd petitioner) and the 1^st respondent herein got evicted on 04.12.2013. Therefore the 1^st respondent is entitled for rents from 04.12.2013 but not from 2009. The said appeal was also challenged by the 1^st respondent before the High Court in Criminal Revision No.1085 of 2013, the same was also disposed of by upholding the judgment of the Appellate Court with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards maintenance and rent of Rs.5,000/- to be paid from the date, the 1^st respondent is vacated. The Court below allowed the petition filed by the 1^st respondent directing to pay the arrears of rent from filing of the petition, that the trial Court ought to have seen that the 1^st respondent herein got evicted by way of a decree in O.S.No.1824 of 2006, therefore, the 1^st respondent is not entitled to receive any rental amount of Rs.5,000/- from the date of petition, that the trial Court erred in coming to conclusion that there

¶28

was an enhancement of Rs.5,000/- and arrears are outstanding which the petitioner is not liable to pay, that the trial Court though held that the 1^st respondent herein did not explain the arrears of rent still ordered to pay the arrears of Rs.3,05,000/- in M.P.No.550 of 2014 dated 28.07.2014, which is contrary to the orders passed by the High Court, that the trial Court failed to examine the orders passed by the High Court filed by the 1strespondent in Crl.R.C.No.1085 of 2013, hence to call for the records and set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.550 of 2014 in D.V.C.No.10 of 2009 dated 28.07.2014 of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner reiterated the same during course of hearing.

¶29

5. Whereas, it is the contention of the 1^st respondent to the revision(DVC petitioner) that the impugned order no way requires interference for this Court while sitting in revision, hence to dismiss the same.

¶30

6. Perused the material on record.

¶31

7. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

¶32

1. Whether the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.550 of 2014 in DVC No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at LB Nagar, is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court while sitting in revision, if so, with what observations?

¶33

2. To what result?

¶34

Point No.1:

¶35

8. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in DVC No.10 of 2009 the husband of the DVC petitioner(R1) was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the DVC Petitioner and her minor daughter towards their maintenance including educational and medical expenses of the daughter from the date of

¶36

order with a direction to pay by 10^th of every succeeding month. There was no order in the DVC case so far as the DVC petitioner’s parentsin-law(R2 and R3) concerned. In the Crl.A.No.112 of 2013 filed by the DVC petitioner, the DVC-1st respondent (husband of DVC-petitioner) was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards rent for the separate residential accommodation of the DVC petitioner and her daughter from the date of her eviction/vacation pursuant to the suit claim in O.s.No.1824 of 2006 filed by DVC 2^nd respondent –cum-mother-in-law of the DVC petitioner and also directed the DVC 1^st respondent/husband to pay Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance to the wife and Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance, medical and educational expenses to the minor child from the date of DVC-petition i.e. 16.06.2009 respectively(modifying from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- and from date of order to date of petition). It is to say the DVC No.10 of 2009 order was merged with the Crl.A.No.112 of 2013 pursuant to which the maintenance payable by the DVC 1^st respondent/husband to the wife is Rs.3,000/- per month and to the minor child is Rs.5,000/- from the date of DVC petition filed on 16.06.2009. It is in addition to that pursuant to the appellate Court’s order supra from the date of the eviction/vacation of the premises by the DVC petitioner, in the suit filed by her mother-in-law DVC 2^nd respondent pursuant to the decree in O.S.No.1824 of 2006 the DVC 1^st respondent/husband also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- for separate residential accommodation to her and to the minor daughter. The order is crystal clear in this regard and it is important to note that pursuant to the order in A.S.M.P.No.2795 of 2012 in the appeal filed by the DVC petitioner in A.S.No.802 of 2012 against the eviction decree passed in O.S.No.1824 of 2006 in favour of the plaintiff mother-in-law of the DVC-petitioner, there was interim stay against the eviction and subsequently the very order supra there was a modification from the mother-in-law the respondent to the appeal filed by the daughter-in-law (DVC petitioner) to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. towards rent from the date of

¶37

her vacating the premises and pursuant to which she vacated on 10.04.2013. There is no dispute on these facts. It is important to note that, the said vacation is by mutual understanding and not by execution against will of the J.Dr. However, there is no such difference made out in the Crl.A.No.112 of 2013 order but for saying from date of eviction or vacation, which may mean outcome to involuntary act of J.Dr. by execution against her.

¶38

9. It is equally important to note that the DVC case was filed not only against the husband but also against the in-laws including the D.Hr. in O.S.No.1824 of 2006. Even the DVC claim against the inlaws ended in dismissal by order in DVC No.10 of 2009; the appeal filed by the DVC petitioner impugning the quantum was against all the three respondents which includes not only her husband but also her in-laws and there was the modified order supra, no doubt the direction is against the DVC appeal 1^st respondent/husband. It is also important to note that, as per the A.S.M.P.No.2795 of 2012 order of the 1^st appellate Court in the A.S.No.802 of 2012 to pay Rs.10,000/- from the undertaking given by the plaintiff-decree holder of the suit O.S.No.1824 of 2006 as respondent to the appeal, not clear to say it is in addition to Rs.5,000/- payable by the husband for separate accommodation or it is inclusive of it. In fact the parties to the lis if at all to seek any clarification, it is only from the Court which passed the order in the pending appeal A.S.No.802 of 2012 for the reason the DVC petitioner cannot have double benefit.

¶39

10. From the above background now coming to what is the amount due in this matter sought for execution by the DVC petitioner in this Crl.M.P.No.550 of 2014 concerned, the amount of Rs.8,000/- p.m. is payable from DVC petition filed on 16.06.2009 towards maintenance to the wife and minor daughter(DVC petitioner and minor daughter). Apart from it, as per the DVC-appellate Court’s order further Rs.5,000/p.m. towards residential accommodation is payable only from

¶40

10.04.2013 when the DVC petitioner-cum- DVC appellant vacated the premises of her mother-in-law covered by O.S.No.1824 of 2006 in the A.S.No.802 of 2012 pursuant to the orders in A.S.M.P.No.2795 of 2012. It is further to clarify that the Rs.10,000/- p.m. undertaken to pay is only by the mother-in-law in that civil proceedings and not in the DVC case merged with DVC appeal . It cannot be executed in the DVC case pursuant to the DVC appeal order for not part of the relief granted therein. It is while paying by the decreeholder therein as respondent to the appeal, she has to seek clarification whether that Rs.10,000/- is inclusive of the Rs.5,000/- payable by her son to her daughter-in-law with effect from 10.04.2013 or excluding the same. Thus the obligation of the respondent No.1 is to pay in addition to Rs.8,000/- p.m. from 16.06.2009 another sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. from 10.04.2013 for the residential accommodation. It is what all that can be executed in the Crl.M.P.No.550 of 2014. Even taken it for 13 months from 10.04.2013 to 10.05.2014 it comes to Rs.65,000/-, towards residential accommodation and towards maintenance at Rs.8,000/- p.m. from 16.06.2009 till 15.05.2014, it comes to Rs.4,72,000/-. The grand total is Rs.5,37,000/-. Even included for June and July, 2014 at Rs.13,000/- p.m. of Rs.26,000/-; by 10/15.07.2014, it comes to Rs.5,63,000/-. As per the lower Court’s order dated 28.07.2014, at para-17, the DVC 1^st respondent-revision petitioner paid by then Rs.5,01,000/-(excluding payments as per A.S.No.802 of 2012 order of Rs.10,000/- per month by appeal respondent therein). It is thus the balance is payable by then of Rs.62,000/-. Needless to say payable for subsequent period amounts every month. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

¶41

Point No.2:

¶42

11. In the result, the revision case is partly allowed holding that the liability of the DVC 1^st respondent in Crl.M.P.No.550 of 2014, as on 10/15.07.2014 was Rs.5,63,000/- and after deduction of what all he

¶43

paid whether Rs.5,01,000/- or the like, to pay all arrears within one month, else to execute and recover. It is needless to say the further liability to pay every month amounts. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.

¶44

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, Dt.03.12.2014. vvr

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Tirupathi Stevenson Vs Tirupathi Sarika , K. Sarika

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

Smt. K.Kamalamma Vs Sri B.Ramachandraiah