High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions challenging an order granting interim maintenance to children. Bench held trial court correctly assessed income and conduct, refusing enhancement despite wife's claims of higher earnings.
Civil revision petitions dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions stayed/closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 738 ANO 739 OF 2020
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 738 OF 2020
Petitions under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, against the Order made in 1.A.No.358 of 2018 in F.C.O.P.No.1252 of 2017 dated.06-03-2020 on the file of the Court of the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge - Cum- XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum- ll Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
Bommi Narasimha Sankeerth Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Occ Private Employee,6213 Presently R/o. Spirit Street, Apt.,595, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvan ia-'1 5203 USA
...Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent in FCOP.
AND
Neelima Vanguru, Wo. Bommi Narasimha Sankeerth Reddy, D/o. Vanguru Narayana Reddy Aged 32 years, Occ Private employment, R/o. H.No. 1-9819134, Arunodaya Colony, lmage Garden Function Hall Road, Madhapur, Hyderabad
..RespondenUPetitioner
lA NO: 2 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner herein to file Additional material papers ie., bank pass book, statement etc., in CRP No.738 of 2020 for better adjudication in the interest ofjustice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for Smt.V. Preeti Reddy.
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri V. Ravbinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy
clvlL REVISION PETITION NO: 739 OF 2020
Between:
Neelima Vanguru, Wo. Sri Bommi Narasimha Sankeerth Reddy, Aged. 31 years, Occ.Private Employee, R/o.H.No.1-98/9/34, Arunodaya Colony, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana.
...Petitioner/Respondent
AND
Bommi Narasimha Sankeerth Reddy, S/o. Late B. Ramana Reddy, Aged. about 36 years, Occ. Overseas employment, R/o H.No.41, Vijayaragava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai, Tamilnadu. And 6213, Spirit Street Apts 595, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Zipcode-'1 5206, USA. [email protected] sankeerthreddyS'l @gmail.com
...RespondenUPetitioner
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Ravbinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for Smt.V. Preeti Reddy.
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY CML REVISION PETITION Nos.738 and 739 of 2O2O
COMMON ORDER:
As the issue involved in both these writ petitions is arising out of order dated 06.03.2020 in IA.No.358 of 2Ol8 in FCOP.No. 1252 of 201.7, they are being heard together and drsposed of by this common order.
2.CRP.No.738 of 2O18:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ husband under Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Sectior-r 151 CPC against order dated 06.03.2020 in IA.No.358 of 2018 in FCOP.No.1252 of 2017, wherein and whereby the Court belou, partly a1lor'ved the application filed by the respondent/wife granting interim maintenance of Rs.2 lakhs to the children Master Bommi Arush and Baby Bommi Amaria from the date of petition i.e. 29.O3.2018 to 04.12.2018 and thereafter from 05.12.2018 at the rate of 3,12,500 l- per month until further orders. It is further ordered that the interim maintenance amount sha11 be credited to the bank account of the u,ife by the husband on or before lOth of every month and the arrears of maintenance shail be paid by the husband in five equal installments commencing from April 20 18 onu,ards and the first installment shall be paid on 10.04.2020 and aiso the arrears of installments shall also be paid along with interim maintenance until total clearance of the same apart from the above Rs.25,000/- rn,as granted tor.r,ards 1egal expenses to the
wife for prosecuting the case which shall be paid within t\,o months from the date of the order i.e. 06.03.2020.
3. CRP.No.739 of 2O2Ot
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner / rvife against the order dated 06.03.2O2O in IA.No.358 of 2018 in FCOP.No. 1252 of 2017, seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs.4,91,700/- per month towards interim maintenance of minor children.
The marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 03.08.2008 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of their wedlock, both were blessed with son and daughter by names Master Bommi Arush and Bab_v Bommi Amaria. They lived happill' about seven years after the marriage in USA and returned to India in the year 20 15. In fact the husband sent back the petitioner and the two children to India on 04. 10.201 5 and the respondent came to India on 26.10.2015.'lhe respondent again left India in December 2015 stating that he "r,ould come back to India permanently after selling all the properties in USA. But, he did not come back to India till January, 2017. As the respondent left to USA by leaving the wife and the children, the wife filed FCOP.No.1139 of 2O77 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Later, the husband filed FCOP.No.7252 of 2017 for Dissolution of Marriage against the wife. Though , the respondent visited India and met the petitioner arrd two children, he has not spent any
J
amount on them and no maintenance was provided even for the two children. The children were admitted in Chirec School and also engaging them in various constructive activities like music classes, swimming, tennis etc., by spending huge amounts. Therefore, the petitioner and two children are entitled for the benefits to meet the standard of living of the respondent, which would include the medical needs and all other maintenance expenses for them. The respondent is working in a senior position in PNC Bank, Pittsburgh, USA and earning Rs.1,95,00,000/- per annum or about 3 lakhs dollars per allnum i.e, Rs. 16,50,000/per month, as such, he is capable of paying Rs.6.50 lakhs per month towards interim maintenance to the petitioner and the two chi ldren.
in several ways personally and through elders failed.The respondent is ready to give the children, the life they deserveand ready to maintain them, if they come back to USA. It is stated that the petitioner is an employee working at SKS Micro Finance as a Principal Manager and she is living with her parents in their house at Madhapur and has no necessity for incurring expenses due to the same. The expenses referred to by the petitioner are in the form of gross overstatement to extract money under the guise of expenses. The earnings of the respondent as shown in the petition are not correct. The petitioner, who is professionally qualified and capable of sustaining, is not entitled for maintenance. The children are entitled to the same standard of life as the respondent, who iives in USA and it applies to the respondent as well and therefore, the costs of the living of the respondent are also to be taken into consideration. 6. The trial Court, after considering the pleas and contentions raised by both the wife/petitioner and husband/ respondent, passed impugned orders on 06.03.2020 ' granting interim maintenance, as stated supra. 7. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing the for Smt.V.Preeti Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner/husband in C.R.P.No.738 of 2020, who submits that the respondent/wife is living separately on her own, as she is having income and that she is not interested in joining the company of the petitioner/ husband, as such, petitioner had to file FCOP No.1252 of 2Ol7 for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty. He submits that the
5
trial Court, without any basis, without affording an opportunity, granted exorbitant interim maintenance. He submits that since the petitioner/ husband has to maintain himself and his widowed mother, the interim maintenance claimed by the respondent/wife tou,ards maintenance of children is very exorbitant. He further submits that even though no documents are marked, the trial Court granted exorbitant interim maintenance. He also submits that the trial Court granted maintenance more than the amount claimed by the wife and that the petitioner/husband is ready and willing to maintain the children, as it is his responsibility. B. On the other hand, Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/wife in CRP No.738 of 2O2O submits that the trial Court, alter taking into account of the standard of living of the wife ald husband, basing on the admissions made by the husbancl/ petitioner with regard to his earnings i.e., Rs.12.00 lakhs per month, granted interim maintenance, which is on lower side, as such, the respondent/wife fi1ed CRP No.739 of 2O2O for enhancement of interim malntenance. He submits that the respondent/wife could substantiate the earnings of the husband that he is earning Rs.16,50,000 l- per month, but the husband has not liled any salary certificate or income tax returns showing his monthly income, which shows the conduct of the husband, as such, the interim maintenance granted by the trial Court, cannot be interfered with. He submits thar the tria_l Court recorded that the husband is earning Rs.8.00 lakhs per month, after
0
deductions, AS such, trial Court could have granted interim maintenance as prayed for.
In this case, it is to be seen that the marriage took place between the petitioner and the respondent and they were blessed with two children out of their wedlock. From pleadings of both the parties, it appears matrimonial differences arose between the parties, after birth ol both the children, the petitioner/ husband and the respondent/wife are living separateiy. The children are living with their mother since the date of separation in the year 2017, which lead to filing of FCOP No.1139 of 2Ol7 for restitution of conjugal rights by the rvife / respondent and the petitioner/husband filed FCOP No.).252 of 2077 for dissolution of marriage with the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty. A perusal of pleadings goes to show that both the petitioner and respondent had iead very luxurious life befitting their status. Neither in the petition filed by the petitioner/husband nor in the counter filed by the respondent/wife indicates exact sa1ary being earned by the petitioner/husband before the trial Court.The trial Court, basing on the documents filed by bothpartiesand admissions made by the petitioner/ husband, calne tothe conclusion that the petitioner/ husband is earning Rs.8,00,000/per month, though the respondent/r,r,ife claims that he is earning Rs.16,50,000 l- per month. The trial Court granted interim
1
maintenance, as observed supra. The sa1ary certificate filed by the petitioner/husband at page 66 of the material paper is not disputed by the respondent/wife. If that is taken into account, the saiary per annum of the petitioner/ husband is 1,75,000 dollars per annum, it comes to Rs.1,31,25,000/- per annum, which comes to Rs.10,93,750 per month and 14583 dollars per month, i.e., the gross salary. According to learned senior counsel for respondent/u,ife, if 173.a is deducted from Rs.10,93,750/- i.e., Rs.2,53,000/- it comes to Rs.7,65,000/- per month and after deducting his contribution i.e., 40%o towards his maintenance, it comes to Rs.a,50,000/- but he trial Court has granted only Rs.3,12,500/- per month from the date of petition tilI the date of payment.
I
B
is also not disputed that petitioner/ husband is having other properties. The conduct of the husband goes to show that he has not filed any salary certificate or income tax returns before the Court below. The Court below has considered all these aspects and granted interim maintenance. The counter aflidavit filed by the petitioner/husband is as vague as it can be and now the husband files a-ffidavit after the affidavit before this Court.
1 3. The Indian Evidence Act is not made appiicable ina mechanical manner. The discretion is vestedwith the Family Court to receive any evidence, any report,any relevantstatement, documents, information etc, which is necessary forits assistance to deal effectually with a dispute. It is madepermissible in the statute whether or not such documents are relevant oradmissible in the Evidence Act. Thus, "the powers arevested with the Family
t)
Court under Section 14 of the Family CourtAct to take those documents on record. It is needless to mention that theFamily Court is bound to function as per the enablingprovisions andthe statute under Section 20 of the Family Court Actby whichit was created. The overriding effect given to the Family Courtsunder Section 20 of the F amily Court Act is confined not only tothe Code of Civil Procedure, but also to other enactments. It is always the duty of the Court to give such construction to a statute as w,ould promote the purpose or object of the Act. (See Nawab Mir
Barkat Ali Khan Waleshan Bahadur v. Princess Manolya Jah [2018(4) ALD 2O4] arrd also order of this Court in CRP No.206of 2020 dated 1 5.06.20201.
same were not filed by the petitioner/ husband and that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner/ husband is traveling to India every month, as such, his expenditure of Rs.1,25,000/per month towards traveling to India every month was not considered. The court also found that the petitioner/ husband has not spent any amount towards maintenance for the respondent/wife and two children from 04.10.2015 onu,ards. It is also found from the correspondence betr,r,een the parties that the petitioner/ husband was willing to pay the maintenance amount for all the counts for the sake of development of the children in fu1l fledged manner and that to meeting the standards of the family of the children and the respondent/ u,ife, as such, the Court below rightly granted interim maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. Moreover, I.A.No.2310 of 2019 to summon the petitioner/ husband for producing the documents relating to income of the petitioner/ husband 1S pending before the Court below. The trial Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also by taking into account the conduct of the husband in not disclosing the true income, has granted interimi maintenance, as such, no interference is called for by exercislng power of jurisdiction under Articl e 227 of the Constrtutionof india.
In view of above facts and circumstances,I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned ordergranting interim maintenance to the respondent/rvife or for enhancementof compensation and the order of the Courtbelow is confirmed.
l1
Accordingly,boththese CivilRevision Petitionsare dismissed.There shal1 be no order as to costsAs a se quel thereto,miscellaneouspetitions' if any' shall stand closed'
SD/. M. MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
,TRUE COPY//
S ON OFFICER
To,
MMK \
frg-z
I-IIGH COURT
ARRJ
DATED:0211212020
B -i Hg 14 j
o
oo lN DEE2m
o
*
F.I,TC'i1r! *
I
COMMON ORDER
CRP.No.738 and739 ot 2020
DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS
s\v .
5c-oPreA
)r \+d*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance granted by the trial court in the factual matrix of undisclosed income and children's standard of living is proper and reasonable.
Whether substantial evidence regarding the husband's high income and conduct warrants deviation from the trial court's quantum of interim maintenance under Article 227.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
6 provisions across 4 enactments
Bommi Narasimha Sankeerth Reddy
Neelima Vanguru
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
