Telangana High Court
Sri G. Ramesh Kumar vs Smt. Jayashree on 15 February, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.248 AND 263 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Both these Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the petitioner, who is the husband and father of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, challenging the common order dated 22.12.2020 passed in Crl.M.P. No.149 and 269 of 2018 in M.C. No.224 of 2008 by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. Heard Mrs.Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 - State. Despite service of notices, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent Nos.1 and 2, wife and son of the petitioner, have filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C. No.224 of 2008 seeking maintenance. Vide order dated 18.11.2010, the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, had allowed the said petition with costs granting an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and 2 KL,J Crl.R.C. Nos.248 & 263 of 2021 Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2, making a total of Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance from the date of petition i.e., 19.05.2003.
4. The petitioner herein had filed a petition vide Crl.M.P. No.269 of 2018 under Section - 125 (5) of Cr.P.C. in M.C. No.224 of 2008 seeking to cancel the said maintenance granted by the Judge, Family Court, whereas respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein had filed a petition vide Crl.M.P. No.149 of 2014 under Section - 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enhance the maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. Vide common order dated 22.12.2020, the learned Judge, Family Court, had dismissed Crl.M.P. No.269 of 2018 filed by the petitioner and allowed Crl.M.P. No.149 of 2014 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.5,000/- i.e., Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2 from April, 2014 for a period of three (03) years i.e., up to March, 2017 and, thereafter, Rs.20,000/- (i.e., Rs.10,000/- to respondent Nos.1 and 2 each) from April, 2017 payable by the petitioner herein on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The petitioner was also directed to deposit each month's maintenance into 3 KL,J Crl.R.C. Nos.248 & 263 of 2021 the account that would be furnished by respondent Nos.1 and 2 including the arrears after deducting the maintenance, if any paid.
5. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioner herein has filed these revisions.
6. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein had filed Crl.M.P. No.269 of 2018 under Section - 125 (5) of Cr.P.C. in M.C. No.224 of 2008 seeking to cancel the maintenance granted by the learned Judge, Family Court on the grounds that his son, respondent No.2, had completed the age of 18 years by 21.10.2017 and became major and, therefore, he is not entitled for any maintenance. As far as respondent No.1 is concerned, it is stated that he had filed a petition vide O.P. No.1065 of 2008 on the file of Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam under Section - 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act against respondent No.2 seeking dissolution of his marriage with her dated 06.06.1998 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and that the same was decreed vide order dated 29.06.2009. Thereafter, he married another girl and they are blessed with a female child. But, the learned Judge, Family Court failed to consider the same and also failed to consider his contention 4 KL,J Crl.R.C. Nos.248 & 263 of 2021 that respondent No.1 is earning an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month on tuitions and Rs.20,000/- per month towards rents. Thus, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled for any maintenance. As such, the learned Judge, Family Court erred in dismissing Crl.M.P. No.269 of 2018 and also erred in enhancing the maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.
7. Perusal of the record would reveal that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.1 was performed on 06.06.1998 and they were blessed with a son, i.e., respondent No.2 herein. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No.1. As stated above, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C. No.224 of 2008 seeking maintenance, and the learned Judge, Family Court, on consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary, vide order dated 18.11.2010, had allowed the said petition granting an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2, making a total of Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance from the date of petition i.e., 19.05.2003. Perusal of the said order would reveal that the petitioner herein though deposed as RW.1 did not file any 5 KL,J Crl.R.C. Nos.248 & 263 of 2021 document. There is no mention about the filing of complaint by respondent No.1 for the offence under Section - 498A of IPC and the judgment dated 08.09.2006 in C.C. No.1963 of 2003 wherein the petitioner was acquitted for the said offence. He has also not mentioned in his counter about the filing of O.P. No.1065 of 2008 seeking dissolution of marriage. He has only mentioned about filing of the application vide O.P. No.104 of 2003 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, whereas, respondent No.1 was examined as PW.1 and her father as PW.2. On consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary including the salary of the petitioner, the learned Judge, Family Court, had awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.1 herein and Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2 herein per month as maintenance. Thereafter, the petitioner herein had filed a petition vide Crl.M.P. No.269 of 2018 under Section - 125 (5) of Cr.P.C. in M.C. No.224 of 2008 for cancellation of the said maintenance granted by the Judge, Family Court on the ground that despite issuance of notice and filing O.P. No.104 of 2003 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights, respondent No.1 has not joined the company of the petitioner and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. Further, respondent No.1 is having properties worth Rs.10.00 Crores and she is 6 KL,J Crl.R.C. Nos.248 & 263 of 2021 getting rents to a tune of Rs.20,000/- per month and also earning an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month on tuitions. It is further contended by the petitioner that he has filed O.P. No.1065 of 2008 seeking dissolution of marriage between him and respondent No.1 and the same was decreed vide order dated 29.06.2009. It is an ex parte decree. Even according to the petitioner, respondent No.1 has filed a petition seeking to set aside the said ex parte decree, but the same was dismissed. There is no mention about the challenge to the said order. According to the petitioner, taking advantage of the said divorce, respondent No.1 has developed illegal intimacy with one Nemani Ramesh Babu and leading adulterous life and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance, and the maintenance awarded by the learned Judge in M.C. No.224 of 2008 has to be cancelled. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed counter opposing the relief sought by the petitioner herein.
8. On the other hand, respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed a petition vide Crl.M.P. No.149 of 2014 under Section - 127 of Cr.P.C. in M.C. No.224 of 2008 seeking to enhance the maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month on the grounds that the petitioner 7 KL,J Crl.R.C. Nos.248 & 263 of 2021 herein has been working as J.E-II in the office of the Senior Divisional Engineer (Transaction and Distribution), Waltair Division, Visakhapatnam, East Railway Zone, and earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 require an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to meet their day-to-day expenses. The petitioner herein had filed counter in the said petition opposing the said relief.
9. Respondent No.1 herein was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 and P2, which are school fee receipts and salary certificate of the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner herein, he was examined as RW.1 and one Mr. Kotla Srinivas as RW.2 and marked Exs.R1 to R4, which are original birth certificate of respondent No.2 herein, certified copy of order in O.P. No.1065 of 2008, certified copy of loan account statement of SBI and certified copy of judgment in C.C. No.1963 of 2003.
10. The learned Judge, Family Court, on consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, vide order dated 22.12.2020, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and allowed the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in part enhancing the 8 KL,J Crl.R.C. Nos.248 & 263 of 2021 compensation in the manner stated above. The learned Judge gave specific finding that the petitioner herein has not filed any proof and he has not examined any witness to show that respondent No.1 is leading an adulterous life. He has not taken any step to summon or examine the said Ramesh Babu, who is alleged to have illicit relationship with respondent No.1. Regarding RW.2, the Court held that he is running a marriage bureau and is not a trustworthy witness. The learned Judge also gave a specific finding that the petitioner herein has not filed any document to show that respondent No.1 is having assets / properties worth Rs.10.00 Crores and getting an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards rent. He has not filed any document to show that respondent No.1 is getting an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month on tuitions. The said allegations are bald and omnibus. In the absence of any evidence either oral or documentary, the said bald allegations cannot be relied upon and believed.
11. With regard to respondent No.2, there is specific finding that though he attained majority, he is not doing any work and the petitioner herein failed to produce any evidence either oral or documentary to show that respondent No.2 is earning and he can live 9 KL,J Crl.R.C. Nos.248 & 263 of 2021 on his own legs and he can maintain himself. The learned Judge, Family Court has also considered Ex.P2 - salary certificate, and as per which, he is drawing an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month. With the said findings, the learned Judge, Family Court has enhanced the maintenance in the manner stated above.
12. Even in the present revision, the petitioner herein failed to produce any evidence to show that respondent No.1 is living adulterous life, she is having immovable properties worth Rs.10.00 Crores and getting an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards rent and Rs.60,000/- per month on tuitions. He has also not filed any document to show that respondent No.2 is earning and he can survive on his own. Therefore, the order under challenge is a reasoned order and does not suffer from any illegality. The petitioner failed to make out any case to interfere with the order under challenge. In view of the above discussion, both the revisions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.
13. Both the Criminal Revision Cases are accordingly dismissed.
10
KL,J Crl.R.C. Nos.248 & 263 of 2021 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the criminal revisions shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 15th February, 2022 Mgr