Dismissed

Mohd.Abdul Rasheed, v. Asiya Sultana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2014CRLRC/248/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the High Court upheld the Family Court's order awarding maintenance to a wife and child. The Court rejected the husband's challenge to the quantum of maintenance, finding the lower court's assessment of the husband's income and the wife's lack of resources reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed, confirming the order of the Additional Family Court awarding maintenance.

Mohd.Abdul Rasheed, Vs Asiya Sultana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 248 OF 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) by the petitioner/husband assailing the orders dated 29.03.2007 of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-Cum- Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad passed in M.C.No.94/2006, filed under Section 125 of CrPC by the wife and child. By the said orders the learned Additional Judge, Family Court had partly allowed the petition and had awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.2000/- to the child aged 2 years from the date of petition.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and also of the learned Public Prosecutor representing the third respondentState. I have perused the material record.

¶6

3. Now the points for determination in the Criminal Revision

¶7

Case are as under:

¶8

1) Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to award of any maintenance as contended by the petitioner?

¶9

2) Whether the respondents 1 and 2 have made out valid and sufficient grounds for award of maintenance to them?

¶10

3) And, if so, whether the quantum of maintenance awarded to them is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced in the facts and circumstances urged by the petitioner?’

¶11

4. POINTS:

¶12

4. (a) In view of the admissions of the parties, there is no dispute about the marital relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent. There is also no dispute about the paternity of the second respondent. Without entering into other contrivances between the spouses, which are not relevant and which are not involved in the present matter, the fact of the matter is that after the marriage between the spouses and the birth of the child there were serious disputes and the said disputes led to estrangement between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents 1 and 2 are now staying separately and away from the petitioner. The provision for maintenance was enacted with the avowed object of preventing vagrancy and destitution. The proceeding for maintenance is not intended for a full and final determination of the personal rights and matrimonial disputes between the spouses and the order for maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure is subject to final determination of their rights in a Civil Court. The provision provides for speedy remedy for maintenance to the wife and eligible children and the maintenance awarded shall be adequate for sustenance, food, clothing and shelter. For award of maintenance, the issues to be considered are the means of the husband, the means of the wife, if any, and the status of the family. The case of the first respondent is this: During her stay with the petitioner she was harassed for additional dowry. And, with the money which her father gave, the petitioner went to Omen for securing a job. Even thereafter, her parents-in-law harassed her at the instigation of the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner had returned to India. The petitioner had further demanded an amount in a sum of Rs.1 lakh to set up business at Hyderabad. When the said demand could not be fulfilled, he had threatened to kill the first respondent. Mediations held at the instance of the first respondent and her family members did not yield fruitful results. Therefore, she was constrained to file a criminal case. The petitioner

¶13

was arrested and was later released on bail. The petitioner had totally neglected to maintain the respondents 1 and 2.’ During the course of enquiry, the first respondent as PW1 testified in line with her pleaded case. On the other hand the case of the petitioner is that he was working abroad even prior to the marriage and that the allegations in the petition of the respondents are all false and that the first respondent had voluntarily left his company and started living separately on her own. He had also deposed to the effect that there were no demands for dowry and that there was no harassment whatsoever and that he had never neglected to maintain the respondents 1 and 2. A careful analysis of the evidence shows that no important points are elicited in the cross examination of PW1 to discredit her evidence and the evidence of RW1 that within a short span of marriage the wife had made a false complaint against him without any reason and had voluntarily left his company that too after a birth of a child cannot be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, in the light of the evidence of PW1, which is trustworthy.

¶14

4. (b) Coming to the quantum of maintenance, the evidence on record shows that the first respondent is not having any sources of income and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 have no means for their maintenance. According to the version of PW1, the petitioner is doing business in purchasing foreign currency notes in Sheharan Hotel of Hyderabad and that he was also doing real estate business and is maintaining a car and giving the said car on rent and is earning Rs.14,000/- per month from various sources. During the cross examination of PW1 no suggestions were given to her disputing the said avocations and income of the petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of cross-examination on the occupation and the income of the petitioner, it can safely be accepted that his economic condition is good. He is also an able bodied man capable of earning.

¶15

4. (c) The learned counsel for the petitioner had strenuously contended that the petitioner is not having any avocation and income and that except the self serving oral assertion of PW1 there is no reliable evidence like documentary evidence to show that he was doing foreign currency business and that he owns an Ambassador Car and that he was giving it on hire and earning income as deposed by the PW1. He had forcefully submitted that the first respondent who had voluntarily left the company of the husband is not entitled to any maintenance. Alternately the learned counsel forcefully contended that considering the financial condition of the petitioner-husband, the maintenance may be reduced. As already noted, the evidence of PW1 on the aspects of avocations and the income of the petitioner from various sources had remained unchallenged and hence the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. The said argument is accordingly rejected. By taking into consideration the economic condition of the petitioner, the capacity of the petitioner to earn, the basic needs of the respondents herein and the present day cost of living, the Court below had awarded a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the first respondent-wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the second respondentminor child.

¶16

4. (d) Having regard to the facts and the evidence on record and the present day cost of living, this Court is satisfied that there is no infirmity or illegality or impropriety in the order of the Court below. Hence, the impugned order does not brook interference. Viewed thus, this court finds that there is no merit in the revision and that therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

5. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order of the Additional Family Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶19

____________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶20

Date: 17.12.2014 MVA

Mohd.Abdul Rasheed, v. Asiya Sultana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Abdul Rasheed, v. Asiya Sultana

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

P.Chandra, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Srinivas Reddy, Vs a.Swaroopa Rani

G.Hanumanth , Hanumanth Rao Vs The State.,Sho.

Kothapalli Prabhakar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dhwarangula Ramesh , Burka, (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N. Ravindranath Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana