This high court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a wife challenging a family court order dismissing her maintenance petition. The court found the trial court properly concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to maintenance based on the evidence, noting the petitioner had failed to establish grounds to reappreciate evidence.
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 STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:1411 OF 2009
Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397& 401 of Cr.P.C againstthe Order dated 24-07 -2009 made inlrl.C.No.254 of 2O07, on the file of the Courtof the Additional metropolitan Sessions Judgefor the Trial of JHCBBCcumAdditional Family Court cum XXlll AdditionalChief Judge,Hyderabad.
Between:
Smt. P. Saroja, Wo. P. Venkata RamaRao, Age: 38 years, Occ: Housewife R/o. C/o. Sh'antha Kumari, Om Sri Nivas Apartments,Flat No. G-1, Opp: Prasama Hospital, Old Alwal Secunderabad.
...PETITIONERv( PETITIONER No.1 )
AND
.. . RESPONDENT(PETIflONERNO.2)
...RESPONDENTS
c RLRCMP. NO: 1943 OF 2009
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein topay an amount ofRs.3,0001 per month towards interim maintenance tothe petitioner herein, pending disposalof the Criminal Revision Case.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.V.V. SATYANARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : ADDITIONALPUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SriG. ANANDAM
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLEDR. JUSTICED.NAGARJUN CRIMINALREVISIONCASE No. 1411 of2OO9
o RDER:
This CriminalRevision Case is frled by the revision petitioner- wife aggrievedby the order dated 24'07 '2009 in M.C.No.254 of2OO7 on the file oflearnedAdditional MetropolitanSessionsJudge for trial of JHCBBC-cum - Additional FamilyCourt -cum -XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.
2 The brief factsas can be seen from the recordare as under:
The revisionpetitioner got married to respondent No' 2 a) on 21.03.1986and during their wedlock'the revision petitioner gave birthto respondentNo'3 on O6'O2'L991' RespondentNo.2 has constructed a house in the year 1997' Respondent No'2was anemployee earning salary of Rs.12,000/-per month. Respondent No'2 never cared about the family anddid not meet the educationalexpenses of children onaccount of addiction to bad vices including consumptionof alcoirol. However,the revision petitioner with
2
the help of her elder sister used to survive. Finally, the revision petitioner has filed a petition against the respondent No.2 - husband seeking maintenance of Rs.6,500/_ to the revision petitioner and respondent No.3.
b) To the said petition, the respondent No. 2 _ husband has Iiled counter strongly opposing the petition and denying the allegations in the petition. It is further contended that he is prepared to take care of the petitioner and children. The revision petitioner joined real estate office at Malakpet, which was run by one Reddy and Sub Inspector, Nageshwar Rao. The said Sub - Inspector started visiting his house in his absence. When respondent No.2 has objected the said Sub Inspector for visiting his house, the Sub Inspector has threatened by showing revolver. The respondent No.2 has to vacate the house number of times on account of visiting of Police to his house.
c) During the course of enquiry, the petitioner examined as PWI and got marked Exs.pl to p1O ancl whereas on behalf of respondent No.2, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and got
3
markedExs.Rl to R11' On considering the entireevidence on record,the maintenance petition was dismissed to the extent ofrevision petitioner ald whereasrespondent No'2 was directedto pay monthlymaintenanceof Rs'3'500/-per month torespondentNo'3 i'e'' the daughterof the revision petitioner throughrespondent No'2'
The trialCourt failed to take into consideration the i) testimonyof respondentNo'2' wherein he has categorically admittedinhiscross-examinationthathisgrossmonthly salary isRs.20,0OO/-per month and that he is owninga house.Thus, the tria-l Court ought tohaveawarded maintenanceto the frrst petitioner'
4
ii) The order under the revision is based on assumptions aled presumptions, based on the evidence of RWs 2 and, 3, who deposed that one Nageswara Rao, who is the Sub_ Inspector of Police used to visit petitioner.
iii) In the absence of any cogent reason and evidence wittr regard to the fact that one Nageswara Rao, who is the Sub Inspector of Police used to visit the petitioner herein, no illegal intimacy can be attached or attributed as such the court below ought to have ailowed the craim of the petitioner gralting maintenance by discarding the testimony of RWs 2 and 3.
irr) The trial Court grossly erred in relying on Ex.RS that the petitioner withdrew the amount by stealing the credit card of the respondent No.2 alone cannot be considered for attaching/ attributing the illegal intimacy of the first petitioner with one Nageswara Rao, Sub Inspector of police, as respondent No.2 did not prove either by documentary or oral evidence about the areged extra marital relationship of the petitioner with one Nageswara Rao, which is totalry
5
7
unsustainable allegationmade against the petitioner by the respondent No.2 toavoid and deprive the maintenanceto the petitioner.
5 Now the point for considerationis:
oWhetLter the order dated 24.07.2009 in M.C.No.254 of 2007 onthe fileof learned Addittonal MetropolitanSessions Judge fortial of JHCBBC - clrm -Additional Familg Court - cam - XXIil AdditionalChiefJudge, Hgderabad is liable to be set oside?"
6
understand whether the trial Court has committed any error, either procedurally or legaily, while coming to the conclusion.
7 . As seen from the grounds of revision ald entire material available on record, the revision petitioner tailed to establish that the trial Court has committed illegality or irregularity, in passing the order dated 24.O2.2OO9 in M.C.No.254 of 2OO7. In Khema @ Khem Chandra etc v. State of Uttar Pradesht, the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:
"25. It is further to be noted thnt immediatelg after the incident, Vijag Singll" brother of deceased Prakash as utell as Omueer (PW1) and Inder (PW2), informed about the incident to Police Station Shergarh on telephone uthich fact has come on record in the euidence of Omueer (PW1) and Inder (PW2). Neither Vijay has been examined nor has the station diary entry uith regard to the said telephonic message been placed on record. Thnugh Inder (pW2) has admitted that the incident tuas ruitnessed bg Parmal, Rajueer and other residents, ruone of them tuas examined. As suclq the possibilitg of the prosecution not bringing on record the real genesis of the incident cannot be ruled out.
I 2022 o ArR (sc) 3765
l
slould not reappreciqtethe euidence.No doubt that the reliaruceplaced by Shn Singhon the judgment of this Court iru the case ofSmt. Dalbir - Kaur (supra) is well merited. Howeuer, it is to be noted that thisCourt, in a catena of cases, has lleld that ttnughin cases of concurrent findings of fact this Courtuill not ordinarilg interfere iiin tLE said ftndings,inexceptional circttmstaruces,lhis Court is empotuered to do so. If this Court findsthat the appreciation of euidence and findingsis uitiated bg ang error of lanu or procedureor foundcontrary to the pinciples of naturaljustice, errors of recordand -misreading of the euidence, or where th-e conclusions of theHighCourt are manifestlg pen)erse, this Court wouldnot be pouterlessto reappreciate the euidence.Reliance inthis reipbct could.be placed on the judgments of this Court in ttecases ofHimachalPradesh Administrationu. shn Om Prakash6 Sadhanantham and6 Aruruachqlam u.P.S.R (1e72) 1 SCC 249AnotherTMithilesh Kumari and Another Prem Behai KhareS State of U.P. u. Babul Nath9,and Pottokkal Kuruhikoga (Dead) Bg LRs. u.Thoopigakkal Koya and AnotherlO.
8
9 . The revision petitioner has denied the contentions raised by the respondent No.2, more particularly her alleged intimacy with Nageswara Rao, Sub Inspector of police and she a_lso contended that she has not stolen the credit card of respondent No.2. During the course of enquiry in the trial
9
court, the revision petitioner was examined as PW1,who admitted that she can identify Nageswara Rao, SubInspector of Police. The revisron petitioner also stated thatthe respondent No.2 used toget NageswaraRao andshare drinks with him. The revisron petitioner denied thatthe said Nageswara Rao used to visit herhouse
l0
merits in this criminal revision thereby it is liable to be
dismissed.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
Sd/- M. RAiTIANA KRTSHNA DEPUTY REGIS
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
nJb \V
HIGH COURT
DT.DNR,J
DATED:1310212023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1411 of2009
',,'5.
1N3
.--:,;
{: "n\t<br>,:
$'j, .,. ,,,'i
r: .(. - /:/
r_ . J',
-l' -r r "
-<:_,1..-
DISMISSING THE CRIMTNALREVISION CASE.
9g+
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dated 24.07.2009 dismissing the maintenance petition is liable to be set aside on revision?
Whether the trial court committed any error of law or procedure in concluding that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. P. Saroja
The State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor
P. Venkata Rama Rao
DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
