Revision filed against order awarding maintenance. Court upheld award of Rs.3,000 to wife and Rs.2,000 to child, finding respondent income sufficient and wife's separate residence justified by dowry harassment, rejecting claim of wife's independent income.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed; no interference with trial court order awarding maintenance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2316 of 2017
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’), is filed questioning the propriety and legality of the order, dated 16.05.2017, in M.C.No.117 of 2014 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner.
The respondent is working as Technician in Railways at Mumbai. On 31.12.2012 the respondent came to Hyderabad along with the first petitioner and demanded the parents of the first
MSM,J crlrc_2316_2017
2
petitioner to adjust an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for his personal necessities. The parents of the first petitioner arranged the said amount with a hope that he would look after her daughter well. Later, the respondent was transferred to Hyderabad. Again on 15.01.2014, the respondent and his mother went to the parents house of first petitioner and demanded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as additional dowry, but they expressed their inability to fulfil the illegal demand made by the respondent. They beat the petitioner with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and necked her out from the house along with the child on 24.04.2014. Having no other alternative, she went to her parents’ house and living with them. The respondent is working as Technician and earning sufficient income, whereas the petitioners have no means to live.
MSM,J crlrc_2316_2017
3
under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, who in turn arrested him and she deliberately got assaulted him in the police station. It is further stated that she went to the house of respondent and beat his old age parents and took away all the household articles and movable properties from his house and thereafter, she approached State Human Rights Commission and gave a complaint against the respondent. The Human Rights Commission directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri Division to take up investigation and file report. Thus, she foisted a false case against the respondent and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
MSM,J crlrc_2316_2017
4
MSM,J crlrc_2316_2017
5
coupled with the evidence of R.W.1, clinchingly established that the respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners and when the petitioners were necked out for her failure to meet the illegal demands of dowry, the first petitioner is living with her parents is justifiable as she is not expected to live with the respondent. The Apex Court in Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and another1 , held that the wife is tortured by her husband for demand of additional dowry or she has reasonable apprehension arising from the conduct of the husband that she is likely to be physically harmed due to persistent demands of dowry from her husband’s parents or relations, such apprehension also would be manifestly a reasonable justification for the wife’s refusal to live with her husband. Therefore, by following the principle laid down in the above Judgment, there is any amount of justification for separate living of the first petitioner along with her parents when she was necked out from the house and filed a criminal case, the contention that there is no justifiable cause for her separate living as contended by counsel for the respondent, holds no substance.
1 AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1972
MSM,J crlrc_2316_2017
6
interference of this Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
AUGUST 21, 2017 YVL
MSM,J crlrc_2316_2017
7
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2316 of 2017
Date: 21.08.2017
YVL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court was excessive in light of the respondent's income and cost of living.
Whether the wife's refusal to live with the respondent was justified given the demand for additional dowry and being driven out.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the wife's independent source of income to negates maintenance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and anotherExplained¶21
Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and another
2 provisions across 1 enactments
STATE VIA JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
