Dismissed

K.Vivek v. K.Shiva Deepti

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022CRLRC/460/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision by the husband against a Family Court order awarding monthly maintenance to his wife and minor daughter. The High Court rejected the plea that the wife, a qualified post-graduate capable of earning, was disentitled to maintenance, found the husband had suppressed his income, and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed confirming the Family Court order in M.C. No. 34 of 2013 dated 29.11.2018 awarding maintenance to the petitioners. No costs.

K.Vivek Vs K.Shiva Deepti — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

MONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RAOHA RANI

¶5

Revision filed under section 397 & 4o1 of crrc against the ordermade in M'c'No'34t2o13 dt'2gt11t2o18 on the file of the court of the Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubibe Hills car Bomb B.last case Family court cum XXHI Additionat chief Judse, cum tX AMSJ, ;ffi:l:l:"r,

¶6

Between:

¶7

K' Vir'ek, s/o. K.S. prabhu, aged 35 years, occ. software, R/o. H.No. c-g, t Phase, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

¶8

... PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶9

AND

¶10

1' K'Shiva Deepti, MBA, MS (u-s.A) wo. K.Virrek, aged 33 lrears, occ. Not Known, R/o. H. No. 1 0-3-573/3RT, Vijayanagar corony, Hyderabad.

¶11

2' Baby Aditi, aged 7 years (minor) Rep. by her mother, K.Shiva Deepti, R/o. H. No. 1 0-3-573/3RT, Vijaya naga r Cobny, Hyderabad.

¶12

... RESPO N DE NTS/PETITIONERS

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public prosecutor, Higrtr Corrt of

¶14

Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶17

Petition under section 397 (1) praying that for the reacons stated in the .Mernorandum of Grounds of criminal Revision case, the High court may b. pleased to suspend the orders in M.c.No.34t2013 dt.2gt11t201g on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast case cum Additional Family Court cum XXlll Additional chief Jr.rdge, cum lx AMSJ, Hyderabad pending disposal of the criminal Revision case.

¶18

lA NO: 1^{OF 2022}

¶19

Petition under^{Section482 RM/ Section 91 Cr'P'C praying that' the High} CourtmaybepleasedtodirecttheRespondentNo.l/Petitionertoproducethe salary certificates/^{current Pay slips/ Bank statement' and gross monthly} income including^{Form 16 and copies of lncome Tax Returns from the period of} filing of the^{M.C-No.3412013'}

¶20

counsel^{for the Petitionerin crl.RC460/19& Respondent No' 1 in lA' No'l of} 2022:SRl.^{P s P SURESH KUMAR (Notbeing present)}

¶21

counsel for^{the RespondentNo 1 & zin crl.RC 460/2019 & Petitionersin lA'No:} 1t22: Sri^{N NAVEEN KUMAR}

¶22

counsel for the^{Respondent No 3 in crl.Rc 460/2019& Respondent No' 2 in} lA.No: 1t22:^{PublicProsecutor}

¶23

The Court rnade^{the following:ORDER}

¶24

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶25

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitio ner / respondent aggrieved by the order dated 2g.rr.20rg passed in M.c.No.3 4 of 2013 on the fire of the Additionar Metroporitan sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills car Bomb Blast case _ cum - Additional Farnily court - cum - XIII Additional chief - Judge cum IX Additionar Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶28

The parties are herein referred to as per their array before the Trial Court.

¶29

The case of the petitioners before the Family court in M.c.No.3 4 of 2013 was that the marriage between petitioner No.l and the respondent was solemnised on 15.05.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs, and the said marriage was an aranged one. At the time of the marriage, the parents of petitioner No.l gave dowry

¶30

..r.. DT.GRR"J Crlrc.No.460^of2019

¶31

of Rs.4 lakhs, and^presented 40 tolas of^{gold ornaments, t/a kg of} silver and furniture worth Rs.80,000/-.

¶32

3.1 After the marriage, the petitioner No.1^{joined the respondent} at the matrimonial home at Vanasthalipuram.^{The marriagewas} consummated. They led a peaceful, conjugal life for some^time, but soon the respondents subjected petitioner No.1 to harassment and cruelty by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs or to purchase a new car equivalent to the said money. Since petitioner No.l expressed her inability to satisfu the said demand, she was subjected to humiliation and insult. The parents and rvell-wishers of petitioner No.1 appealed to the respondent and his parents not to harass the petitioner No.l, but all their efforts had gone in vain. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 became pregnant, and her health was affected due to the harassment and mental torture meted out to her by the respondent and his parents. The petitioner No.l went into a state of depression due to the treatment meted out by respondents and had to undergo medical treatment for the same. The respondent and his parents used to force the petitioner No.l to

¶33

::3:: DT.GRR"J Crlrc.No.460 of20l9

¶34

undergo superstitious and orthodox practices which the petitioner No.1 did not agree for the safety ofthe child.

¶35

3.2 on 0s.01.2orz, s,he was bressed with a baby girr, i.e., petitioner No.2 herein. The respondent and his family members were disappointed on the news of birth of a baby girl, and further subjected the petitioner to harassment during all the ceremonies of delivery of the child. The respondent and his parents completely avoided the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent never visited the petitioner or the girl child. Though he assured to take them home, but postponed the sarne. Later, the respondent went abroad on company work without informing the petitioner No. l. Even on his return from abroad, he did not take petitioner Nos.l and z to his house. The respondent and his family members made propaganda that petitioner No.l was a patient suffering from depression, and that the respondent intended to give divorce to her. under the said circumstances, the petitioner No.l approached for legal remedies available to her. The respondent was counselled by the law enforcement agencies. The respondent agreed to take back the petitioners to home, but tumed back later.

¶36

DT.GRRJ Crlrc.No.460 of 2019

¶37

::4::

¶38

3.3 As there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent, the petitioner No.l lodged a criminal complaint against the respondent and his family members which was registered as Crime No.l60 of 2012 under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶39

3.4 The petitioner No.l fuither pleaded that she had no means to maintain herself and the child, and they were dependant upon her parents for sustenance; the respondent was working in a reputed company by name lWs.Hitachi Consultancy as a Senior Engineer, and he was drawing a salary of Rs.1,20,000/- per month; the father of the respondent was a Doctor, and the respondent's family was having properties; they also own a house at Vanasthalipuram which was let out on rent and receiving a rental income Rs.10,000/-per month therefrom; and prayed this Court to award maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month for petitioner No.l and Rs.10,0001- per month for petitioner No.2, respectively.

¶40

The respondent filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he admitted the marriage between him and petitioner No.l, and that petitioner No.2 was born out of the said wedlock. He denied

¶41

DT.GRR,J Crlrc.No.160 o/20!9

¶42

receiving any dowry and subjecting the petitioner No.l to cruelty. He contended that petitioner No.l was suffering from mental illness and by suppressing the same, she was given in marriage to him. He contended that petitioner No.l behaved abnormally when they went to Kerala for honeymoon by shouting at the peak of her voice; on the following day, when she was in normal mood the respondent questioned her, and the petitioner No.l informed him that she was suffering from psychological problem and was using medicines. He contended that petitioner No.l voluntarily left his

¶43

c-ompany and lodged a fals'e reporldemanding him to put a separate residence and inspite of taking separate residence, refused to join him, thereby he got issued a legal notice for which she also gave a reply.

¶44

4-l rhe respondent further contended that petitioner No.l along with her parents and others, about 14 members, trespassed into his house and beat his old-aged mother and other inmates of the house for which he lodged a report and the vanasthalipuram police registered FIR.No.7l of 2ol3 for the offence under Sections 448, 323 and 506 of I.P.C.

¶45

¶46

DT.GRR,J Crlrc.No.160 of 2019

¶47

4.2 The respondent further contended that petitioner No.l was a Post-Graduate in M.B.A. and could get ajob easily; on account of her conduct, she was disentitled for maintenance; he was ready to provide reasonable maintenance to the child, and prayed the Family Court to dismiss the petition.

¶48

The petitioner No.l was examined as pw.r and her father was examined as Pw.2, and Exs.P.l to p.l4 were marked on her behalf. The respondent examined himself as RW.l, and Exs.R.l and R.2 were marked on his behalf.

¶49

6- on considering the oral and docurnentary evidence on record, the Family court allowed the petition by awarding maintenance to the petitioner Nos.l and 2 in two spells, i."., @ Rs.[5,0001- and Rs.3,000/-, respectively, from the date of petition, i.e., from 03.01 .20t3 rill 02.01 .20t6, and thereafter @ Rs.25,000/and Rs.5,000/-, payable by the respondent from 03.01 .2016 onwards.

¶50

Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred the present criminal Re',,isicn case contending that the Famiiy court

¶51

DT.GRRJ Crlrc.No.460 of 2019

¶52

failed to consider that petitioner No.l studied M.B.A. in India and also M.S. in Texas university (u.s.A.), and was able to maintain herself on her own without depending upon him. The court ought not to have granted maintenance to petitioner No.l. The Judge, Family court of Ranga Reddy District in o.p.No.l59g of 2014 while granting divorce, had not granted any permanent arimony to petitioner No.l, but granted Rs.to lakhs to the petitioner No.2 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family court in M.c. had not even considered that the education qualification of ' petitioner No.l was higher -than .his -quatification;.. The Family

¶53

court had not appreciated that the job of the respondent was not pennanent, so even a month of unemployment would make it impossible to pay the maintenance awarded by the Family court. Likewise, the court also failed to appreciate that petitioner No.l on one stretch had been filing series of cases and depriving his career growth and on another stretch squeezing him for monetary benefits. The court below failed to consider that during his crossexamination, a suggestion was made that he was earning Rs.1,60,000/- p.m., but the said suggestion was denied by him.

¶54

DT.GRR,J Crlrc.No.4fr oJ2019

¶55

::8::

¶56

But, the Court below came to the conclusion^{that he was eaming} Rs.1,60,000/- basing on the suggestion^{made and granteda sum of} Rs.25,000/- to Pw.l. He funher contended^{that the Family court} in the divorce O.P.No.1598 of 201,4^{accepted that petitioner No.l} hersetf deserted him without any sufficient^{cause, and in the said} circumstances, the lower court, believing^{the evidenceof petitioner} No.l and her father, erred in concluding^{that he neglected to} maintain the petitioner Nos. I and2.

¶57

7.1 It was the petitioner No.l rvho was^{unwilling to join his} company when a separate house was taken on^{her demand.A} person was not entitled to maintenance by sitting idle^{and not} utilizing the educationa[ qualifications, and the^{court belowwas not} sound in law in awarding the maintenance;^{and prayed this Courtto} allow the Revision by setting aside the orders of^{the Additional} Family Court in M.C.No.34 of 201,3.

¶58

Now, the point for consideration is"whether the order of the Trial Court in awarding maintenance to respondent / petitioner Nos.l and 2 is in accordance with law? ".

¶59

i:9::

¶60

DT.GRRJ Crlrc.No.460 of 2019

¶61

A perusal of the order of the Additional Family court in M.c.No.34 of 2013 would disclose that the Court, after considering the admitted relationship between the parties and considering that petitioner No.1 filed a report which was registered as F.I.R.No.l60 of 2012 for the offence under Section 49g-A,506 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, observed that petitioners were staying away from the respondent prima focie due to harassment meted to her, the respondent issued a notice demanding the petitioner No.l to join hirn, or else he would initiate action for restitutionof.conjugallights;btrt;thetespondenLdid.not.take.the petitioner No.l back, on her reply, ffid without initiating any proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent had straightaway filed a petition for divorce which would show that he was not willing to continue the marital tie with the petitioner No.l; and, thus found that petitioner No.l had not voluntarily left the matrimonial home, and the attitude of respondent would show his negligence in maintaining the petitioner Nos.l and 2, as such, they were entitled to claim maintenance.

¶62

DT.GRRJ Crlrc.No.460 ol2019

¶63

::10::

¶64

With regard to the means of the respondent, the Family Court fuither observed that the respondent disclosed his occupation as 'Software Proftssional', but did not disclose his salary. He admitted that there was a house at Vanasthalipuram, but stated that it was in the name of his father, and further admitted that his father was no more and that he and his mother were alone residing in the said house. The Family Court also noted that the respondent filed Ex.R.I - copy of the order in FCOP.No.1598 of 2014 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the -Family^{Courl directed the respondent to pay Rs,10 lakfis'towards} maintenance of the child and permitted the wife to utilize the interest accrued thereon; however, the said order was suspended by the High Court pending appeal preferred by the petitioner No.1, as such she could not utilize the said amount.

¶65

The Family Court also observed that though the petitioner No.l was a qualified lady, she had no source of income to maintain herself and the child, and she was dependent upon her father; the petitioner No.2 was pursuing studies for which the petitioner No.l was incurring much expenditufs*_and the respondent, having

¶66

::I I::

¶67

DT.GRRJ Crhc.No.460 ol)0t9

¶68

sufficient means, failed to provide maintenance to the petitioners; and therefore, directed the respondent to pay maintenance to petitioner Nos. t and2.

¶69

During pendency of the present criminal Revision case, the respondents herein filed Interlocutory Application No.l of z0z2 in criminal Revision case No.460 of 2019 praying this court to direct respondent No- l / petitioner therein to produce the sarary certificate / current pay srip / bank statement and the gross monthry income including Form-16 as well as copies of Income Tax Returns from the period of filing of the M.C.No.34 of 2013, by relying on the decision of the Hon,ble Apex court in Rajnesh vs. Nehar

¶70

13' This courr on t6.03.2022, directed both the parties to fire affidavits along with proof with regard to theirpaying capacity.

¶71

14' Petitioner No- r fired an affidavit stating that she was employed with NrTs.Accenture pLC, Hyderabad since December, 2020 as 'Application Developing Analyst,; she was a B. pharmacy

¶72

'1zo:t)^2SCC32q

¶73

DT.GRRJ ::12:: Crtt'c.No.460^ol')019

¶74

graduate and subsequently^{she pursuedher M'B'A'and thereafter} opted for^{Master of Science(M'S') in Computers; since she was} not having technical^{backgroundin any engineeringcourse' she} was unable to^{secure any qualifiedjob; she was initially appointed} with a^pay of^{Rs.4,75,000/-p.a. and was currently on the pay ro11} ofRs.6,35,000/-p.a.oncontingentbasis;thatshehadtoworkat least (15) days^{during night hours, and even though the said} condition of^{employment was vulnerable,she still chose to work} for the said^{period having no othermeansof livelihood for survival} . of her and her minor daughter; that her daughter^{was now aged 9} years and was^{currently studying4th Standard in St' Ann's Girls'} High School,^{at Mehidipatnam, and she was taking care of her by} paylng school fees^{and other expenses; she was residingwith her} elderly^{parents since she could not afford an independentseparate} residence for^{her and was completelydependent uponher parents;} that the respondent^{was a Software Professional with a degreein} engineering, and^{at the time of f,rting of the M'C' he was earning} Rs.1,60,000/-, and^{considering the technical expertise of the} resporrdent over the years, and the present profile of the^respondent

¶75

::13::

¶76

DT.CRRJ Crlrc.No.460 o/20t9

¶77

showing the professional status as a managerial position, would disclose the financial capacity and earning capability of the respondent" The petitioner No.l stated that the respondent was working for IWs.smart IMS, a company based in plainsboro, New Jersey, usA and filed a profire of the respondent available from the intemet.

¶78

Respondent filed an affidavit dated 22.03.2022 stating that he worked for IWs. Hitachi Solutions India pw. Ltd. during the period from 17.07.2013 to 13.09.2019 on a monthly salary of Rs.60,000/-. Thereafter, the *rpo,a.nt joined lvf/r. s;;'iMS, Hyderabad on 04.10.2019 and worked up to 03.07.2020. He was forced to quit the said company. since then, he was not on rolls of any company; and he was working as a free-lancer without any fixed source of income. He denied that he was working for IWs. Smart IMS company based in u.S.A., and filed a copy of his resignation letter dated ot.07.2020. The respondent contended that a sum of Rs.l0 lakhs was in deposit before the Family Court, L.B. Nagar towards one-time maintenance of respondent No.2, and the

¶79

DT.GRRJ ::14:: Crlrc.No.160^of2019

¶80

respondent No.l was peffititted to withdraw^{the interest accrued} thereon every month.

¶81

The respondent filed an additional^{affidaviton 08.06.2022} stating that due to COVID-l9 pandemic,^{he lost the job in IWs.} Smart IMS, Hyderabad and he^{was not working in the said} company anymore; he was doing some^{petty free lancingjobs and} was getting meagre amounts,^and on^{an average he would gilt only} Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month^{and the said amountwould} also vary from month to month depending^{upon the workentrusted} to him, he as paid by way of cash. He do^{filed Bank Statement} obtained from State Bank of India, Vanasthalipuram^Branch, Hyderabad from I't April, 2021 to 3["^{March,2022; and further} contended that as per the affidavit filed by^{the petitioner No.1, the} petitioner No.l was employed and therefore, she^{was not entitled} for any maintenance.

¶82

None appeared for the revision petitioner. Heard the leamed counsel for the respondents.

¶83

::15::

¶84

DT.GRRJ Crlrc.No.46? of2|lg

¶85

Perused the record. The Derhi High court in Kusum sharma vs. Mahinder Kumar sharma2 held that the monthry income of one party may not very often be within the knowredge of the other party, particularly when the relationship is considerably strained and the spouses are living apart for a considerabre period. The true income of the parties is within their personal knowledge and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, lg72 specifically casts the burden of proof of the income on them. section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, lg72 reads as under:

¶86

"section I 06 :Burden oy p**iog yo"i especially within knowledge:

¶87

Wen anyfact is especially within the lcnowledge of any person, the burden of proving thatfact is upon him.,,

¶88

The contention of learned counsel for the respondent was that petitioner No.1 was a qualified post-Graduate and was capable of earning, and would not need maintenance.

¶89

2 z0z0 ssc online Del 931

¶90

DT.GRR,J Crlrc.No.160 of 2019

¶91

::16::

¶92

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shailja^{vs. Respondent}

¶93

Khobbann3 held that:

¶94

"Merely stating that wife is capable of earning, is dffirent from^{actual earning andthat cannotbe a ground} for^{denial of} maintenance to 'wife. We /ind that the High Court^has proceeded on the basts thot the appellant No.l was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for^reducingthe maintenance granted to her by the Family Court.^Whetherthe appellant No.l is capable of earning or whether she^{is actually} earning are two di/ferent requirements. Merely because^the appellant No.l is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sfficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

¶95

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunita l(achwaha vs. Anil

¶96

Kachwahan held at para Nos.7 and 8 as under :

¶97

Inability to maintain herself is the precondition for grant of matntenance to the wtfe. The wde must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in additton to the foct that her husband has sfficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintatn her. In her evidence, the appellant wife has stated that onry due to herp of her retired parents and brothers, she is abre to maintain herself and her daughters- were the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband,s

¶98

I (20 18) 12 scc le9 (20 14) r6 scc 7r5

¶99

:tl7::

¶100

Dr-CRR,J Crlrc.No.460 ol20l9

¶101

economic condition is guite good, the wife wourd be entitred to maintenance.

¶102

The learned couruer for the respondent submitted that the appellant wife is welr-quali/ied, having postgraduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher tn Jabalpur and also working in the Heatth Deportment. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financiar supportfrom the respondent. In our considered view, merery because the appeilant wife is a qualified postgraduate, it would not be suficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family court or in the High court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely the^{w1f; yas.ggrryllrs_.} {.gllglhw it would not be a ground to reject her claimfor maintenance.,,

¶103

¶104

22' The Hon'ble Apex court in Bhuwan Mohan singh vs.

¶105

Meenas, held as under:

¶106

"2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short,^,,the Code,,) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimoniar home Jor the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitabre a*angements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenonce does not necessartly mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like aL unpgson to be thrown awayfrom grace and roamfor her basic

¶107

51zors;6 s.c.c. 3s3

¶108

'* *.JC

¶109

DT.GRRJ Crlrc.No.160^of2Ol9

¶110

::18::

¶111

maintenance somewhere else. She is^{entitled in lan to lead a} life in the similar manner as she^{would havelivedin the house} of her husband. That is^{where the status and stratqcome into} play, and that ts where the obltgations^{of the husband, tn case} of a wrfe, become a^prominent one.^{In a proceedingof this} nature, the husbond cannot^{talce subterfuges to deprive her of} the benefit of living with digntty.^{Regardbeing had to the} solemn pledge at the time^{of marriageand also in consonance} with the statutory lcw that^governsthe field,^{it is the obligation} of the husband to see that^{the wife does not become a destitute,} a beggar. A situation is^{not to be maladroitlycreated} whereunder she is compelled^{to restgnto her} fate^{andthink of} life^"dust unto dust". It^{is totally impermissible.Infact,it is} the sacrosanct duty to^{render the} financial^{supporteven if the} husb and is required to earn^{money with phystcal'tob our; tf he is} able-bodied. There is^{no escape rottte unlessthere is an order} from^{the court thatthe wife is not entitled to get maintenance} from^{the husband on any legally permissiblegrounds."}

¶112

In Rajnesh vs. Neha6, the Hon'ble^{Apex Court gave detailed} guidelines with regard to payment of maintenance in^matrimonial matters and held that careful and^just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrirnonial home. The maintenance 6 zo2o scc online SC 903

¶113

Jt'j'

¶114

::I9::

¶115

DT.GRR.J Crlrc.No.160 of20l9

¶116

amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

¶117

24' The Hon'ble Apex court in Rajnesh (6 supra), while considering the various judgments rendered earlier, held under the head III Criteria for determining quantum -:. _ . of maintenonce - (c)

¶118

Where wife ts eorning some income,as under :

¶119

"The Courts lwve held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar Jrom being aworded maintenance by the husband. The Courts hae provided guidance on this issue in the foltowing judgments.

¶120

In Shailja u Khobbanna (supra), this Court held that merely becawe the wife is capoble oif earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family court- The court lws to determtne whether the income of the wife is sfficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenarrce does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.

¶121

Eutprume uJ Jeq B se eluJedo louuec 1l .Bu*u'e sr aJr.&\ Jr ue^e lutll^poreJul eq uuc ll 'eaoqe tuor; uees eq uuc sB^{.etoga:eq1 .gZ}

¶122

,,zfiu^aLfiuotlt lotsapad^nq8n1 o uo spuDts acuouarurDru apldo.td ot puDqsnq ary {o uor|o&\qo aq, ,Dtl, ppq pw 'Torto.tddo tfilA ,lsDrtord npuotlJ u1 ruawhpnf aqt patp uoqy nqoqs^.st ybootog DtuluDrls u! unor sttlJ

¶123

'woJ aqt (q uwDrp aq tbw acuata{m asra^W uD 'autocttt s1t1{o nmowo uDxa aqt asopstp tou saop puDqsnq aril lt lo.r$oc^{s1t7puotag frtogpil tot suoltoSlpo} 7o&a1^{sn1 a&nqtsrp puo} 't1two{ aqt mDturou ot alqoun s! ?tl tDtlt l^otls ot spuno8 rua1cg[ns aJD alaqt^pll, lDlaww lhpssacau Wltvt^{tlsllqDtsa ot puDqsnq aq,} uo s! snuo aW^'rlsorlord npaarlC tuoy^otlrts'st [otrlpog^,lsortDtd rapuorl7 u! unoJ tt&ttt tWaO^{ary tq ppq sD '{11tur{ slll ulDtulDu} o7 {puapgsns-*Da oy uotltsod^{D' a!} tou^{si at1} Tnrf^pndiioSpuuoS paD 'uarplnp puo afiu s1t7 ulDtulDw ot^tauout 1ua1cg[{ns^Sututoa p alqodoc aq o7 pawnsatd aq Nnw puDqsrul paryoq-ano uY

¶124

a)uDaarulDut {o ur1o1c aqt {uap o7 TualcgSns s1 'a.t8naw Jauaos*otl 'af1u^aqt {o^{&u1uoa pnpDaqt} ,tou'uJDa ot p17ua7od afiu^?tlt 'taqqau ruil naq'(odns)^arqr.tttpoY oryuns a1 ruaw&pnf oqt uodn^{3u1(1at afqt aqry fo{uog} luotloy 's^ apy npoutt O {o{uog u! unoJ^{q&tp {oqwogaqJ}

¶125

'acuauaulDw to{w1o1c nq na{at ot punot? o aq pu ppoc q 'aruocu1 awos &u1u.oa sorn altrn aql asnDcaq t1anw Pqt ppq puD'uo!ruaruot sltp palladat^ynoSaruatdng atg^{'puDqsnq aqt} wo.{ acuo4slsso 1otcuou11[^a,qnbatpu pfo$^{aqs 'aruocut} rualcgSns pal. arti4 aqt aculs ,rrqt uoyuaruoc o^{paslD,tpuDqsnq} aqJ^'nd4oqo7 u! raq)Dq o so potoldwa so$^{puo 'aat8apalonpotSLsod} o^por1 atln aqt (otdns) orloit lcoy iluY^{'^ DtlotttrlcoN} oluns^uI

¶126

61671o^ggS'oy'ct1t7 fw9't0

::02::

::21::

,r-.*".003'"fffi

I )

maintenance to her. The contentions of the leamed counser for the respondents raised in the grounds of revision that the petitioner No'r was a post-Graduate and was abre to maintain herserf and she was not entitred to any maintenance are riabre to be rejected. As seen from the affidavit fired by the pefitioner No.I, she was arso doing a job but it is onry since Decembe r, 2020.Though the respondent is directed to fire his Bank statement since the date of petition, the respondent has fired the same onry from 0r.04.202t to 05'06.2022. Thus, he failed to fire his Bank Shtemenr prior to the said date ard arso faited to show his actual incomq_The record would discrose that since inception of the proceedings, the respondent was not fair enough in disclosing his job or sarary particulars and was suppressing his source of income, and never stated about his annual income at any point of time.

¶133

Therefore, this court does not find any merit in the contention of the leamed counsel for the respondent that petitioners are not entitled to maintenance.

¶134

The quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family court also appears to be reasonable. The award of maintenance from the

¶135

Dr'GRRJ ...r).. Crlrc-No-460^ol2019

¶136

date^{of petition is also in accordancewith the decision of the} Hon'ble^{Apex Court in Rajnesh vs' Neha'}

¶137

Hence,^{this courtdoes not find anYitlegalitY or infirmitY in} the order^{passed by the Family Court in M'C'No'34of 2Ol3' dated} 29.11'2018.

¶138

29.Intheresult,theCriminalRevisionCaseisdismissed confirming^{the order passed by the Additional Metropolitan} Sessions^{Judgefor the Trial of JubiteeHills car Bomb Blastcase -} :um^{- Additi-ona! Falily Court :gum :XIII Additip-natChief} Judge cum IX^{Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,} Hyderabad in awarding^{maintenance to the petitioners. No costs'}

¶139

Miscellaneous petitions^{pending,if any, shall stand closed.}

sd/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M.

DEPUW^REG

(; ,ITRUE COPY'I

sEcrloN oFFlcER

To,

The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills^Car Bomb Brast case cum Additional Famtly Court Cum )filll Additional Chief Judse, Cum IXAMSJ, Hyderabad. (Wtthrl.orOr, it any)

¶146