Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Seeram Chandra Mohan Mohan, vs Seeram Sridevi, 2 Others, on 23 November, 2022
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.337 OF 2009
ORDER:-
This is a Criminal Revision Case is filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is the respondent in M.C.No.12 of 2008, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, questioning the order, dated 07.07.2008 in M.C.No.12 of 2008 where under the learned Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, allowed the maintenance case filed by the petitioners therein directing the respondent therein, who is the petitioner herein, to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to each petitioners i.e., Rs.2,000/- P.M. in total, towards their maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the petition and further directed to pay the said maintenance allowance to the petitioners on or before 10th of every month without fail.
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred as described before the learned Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, for the sake of convenience.
3) The petitioners in the Maintenance Case No.12 of 2008 filed the same under Section 125 of Code of Criminal 2 Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short) before the Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, seeking to give direction to the respondent therein to pay Rs.2,000/- each to them every month towards their maintenance.
4) The case of the petitioners in the said case, as set out in the petition, in brief is as follows:
The marriage of the first petitioner was performed with the respondent on 10.05.1998 at Lingampeta, Rajahmundry in the house of parents of the first petitioner as per Hindu religious, rights and customs. Father of the first petitioner gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent towards customary gift. Father of the first petitioner presented Sare Samans worth of Rs.50,000/- when the first petitioner joined with the respondent. The respondent has father and two sisters. First petitioner is the niece of the respondent and elder daughter of the elder sister. Respondent's younger sister is widow and working as a Teacher. She was living with the respondent. First petitioner and respondent lead their marital life happily for some time. Later, at the instigation of the father of the respondent and his younger sister, he ill-treated the petitioner. They all together necked out the first petitioner. The respondent attributed false 3 allegations against the first petitioner that she is suffering with mental disorder. First petitioner filed Criminal Case under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short). The respondent filed O.P.No.82 of 2001 for divorce and it was dismissed for default. At the instance of family elders and mediators, the respondent agreed to take the first petitioner to his fold. The first petitioner got pregnancy and begotten a baby child by name Santhi. The parents of the first petitioner took first petitioner for delivery at the 7th month pregnancy. Child was born in Nursing Home at Rajahmundry and the parents of the first petitioner borne all expenses in this regard. After she gave birth, respondent did not go to see his child. He did not come back till date. The first petitioner and her parents requested the respondent to come and see the child. He did not provide any maintenance to the first petitioner and child. After six months, second petitioner suffered from brain nerves system disorder. The first petitioner's parents spent huge amounts. Even then respondent did not come forward. Petitioners are not able to maintain themselves. Respondent neglected and deserted the petitioners. He is not paying any maintenance. 4 The first petitioner issued a legal notice, dated 11.02.2002 and respondent replied with false allegations. Hence, the petition.
5) The respondent got filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and contending in substance that first petitioner is suffering with mental disorder and she is a lunatic.
They are not the false allegations and it is a fact. It is denied that due to marital life, first petitioner got pregnancy. The second petitioner is an illegitimate child. He is ready for DNA test. The parents of the first petitioner are rich and they are able to provide maintenance to the petitioners. Father of the first petitioner is running wholesale cycle business in the own building at Rajahmundry. Respondent is not getting any income. Respondent was compelled to marry the first petitioner on account of the close relationship. Even till this day, first petitioner is not mentally sound. After the marriage, first petitioner did not allow the respondent to touch her. O.P.No.82 of 2001 filed by the respondent for divorce was compromised. Respondent is Auto driver and getting very less income. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6) During the course of enquiry before the learned Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, on behalf 5 of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined. The learned Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, allowed the maintenance case in part directing the respondent to a pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to each of the petitioner on or before 10th of every month. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful respondent filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the order of the Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry.
7) Now in deciding the Criminal Revision Case, the points that arise for consideration is:
1) Whether the petitioners in M.C.No.12 of 2008 were able to prove before the learned Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, that the respondent neglected to maintain them in spite of the means he is having and that they are unable to maintain themselves?
2) Whether the order, dated 07.07.2008, suffers with illegality or irregularity or impropriety?
Points 1 and 2:
8) The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner, Sri P. Rajesh Babu, would contend that the order of 6 the learned Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, is without appreciating the evidence on record and simply believing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The learned trial judge failed to took into consideration that the respondent has no means to pay any amount and the learned judge erroneously relied upon Exs.P.1 and P.2. The findings given by the learned judge as regards the income of the respondent by running Auto is not at all tenable. Though the respondent was willing to take care of the petitioners, the Court below did not answer that point. The trial Court did not look into the evidence in depth and made erroneous conclusion, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.
9) The learned counsel by name Sri P. Narasimha Rao, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, would contend that the allegations made by the respondent before the Court below that the second petitioner was illegitimate child is without basis and it shows the conduct of the respondent. At one hand, the respondent contended that the first petitioner was the lunatic.
At another hand, he made allegations attributing unchastity against the first petitioner in maintenance case ruthlessly and it shows his character and conduct. From the very beginning, he 7 tortured the first petitioner and even he did not care to look into the welfare of the second petitioner and did not pay any visit to see when the second petitioner was born and the learned Judge, Family Court, rightly granted the maintenance and this Criminal Revision Case is pending since about 13 years, as such, it is liable to be dismissed.
10) P.W.1 before the trial Court is no other than the mother of the first petitioner, P.W.2 is father of the first petitioner and R.W.1 is the respondent. P.Ws.1 and 2 before the trial Court deposed in support of the case of the petitioners. According to P.W.2, Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the gift deed in favour of the respondent by his father in respect of the house property. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the sale deed in favour of A. Bhaskara Dora executed by the respondent in respect of house property. Ex.P.3 is the Encumbrance Certificate.
11) There is no dispute about the factum of marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent. The contention of the respondent that he was compelled to marry the first petitioner because she was his niece and on account of the pressure exerted by kith and kin is not tenable in my considered view. So, what the Court has to see is as to whether the 8 evidence on record would warrant to come to a conclusion that the petitioner herein, who is the respondent in maintenance case, neglected to maintain the first petitioner and the second petitioner.
12) P.W.1 in chief examination deposed that respondent is her own brother and husband of the first petitioner. The first petitioner is unable to speak properly due to stammering and she is not wordy wise. The marriage was performed on 10.05.1998 between the first petitioner and the respondent as per Hindu customs. Respondent looked after the first petitioner well for some time and during their wedlock, second petitioner was born. Respondent sent away the first petitioner while the second petitioner was in the womb. Respondent developed illegal contact with another woman and used to send the first petitioner of her house and he is a drinker. Respondent has Autos and properties and he is getting Rs.15,000/- per month. During the course of cross examination, P.W.1 denied that respondent and first petitioner did not lead conjugal life. She denied that second petitioner was not born to the first petitioner through the respondent. She denied that she is deposing false. Turning to the cross examination part of P.W.2, who is the 9 father of the first petitioner, he denied that the allegations raised in the evidence are all false.
13) It is to be noticed that as this Court already pointed out the contentions raised by the respondent that he was compelled to marry the first petitioner cannot stands to any reason. His contention that first petitioner was suffering with lunatic and the second petitioner was not born to him cannot stands to any reason. It is for him to explain how first petitioner can have illicit intimacy with any other especially according to him when she was suffering with mental disorder. Apart from this, the very contention of the respondent that the second petitioner was not born to him is without any basis from the record. The conduct of respondent is such that he raised unchastity against the first petitioner without any basis and if any husband raised such unchastity without basis, it could be a sufficient reason to the wife to live separately. There is no dispute that the respondent did not visit the house of the in-laws and the first petitioner gave birth to a child i.e., second petitioner. The pleadings of the petitioners and the evidence adduced in this regard, is not traversed by the respondent. Even the respondent in chief affidavit gone to the extent of 10 deposing that the first petitioner did not get pregnancy and did not begot a child through him. He has no basis to speak such facts before this Court. There is no whisper from the respondent side how an innocent girl, who was not wordy wise, could develop illicit intimacy with any others. If at all the marriage between the first petitioner and respondent was done according to the respondent with compulsion, etc., his remedies are elsewhere to challenge the marriage.
14) Having regard to the above, the conduct of the respondent in raising such allegations in the pleadings without any basis itself leads to a conclusion that he raised unchastity against the first petitioner without any basis whatsoever. The evidence on record is fully convincing to say that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners.
15) Coming to the means of the petitioners to maintain themselves as pleaded by the respondent, he cannot throw his burden on the parents of the first petitioner by contending that they are well to do persons and rich and that they have to maintain the petitioners. When there is no dispute that the respondent married the first petitioner and when the evidence on record goes to show that he raised unnecessary allegations 11 against the first petitioner that he gave birth a child by having contact with some others which he is not able to establish, he is bound to provide maintenance to the petitioners. He cannot abdicate his responsibility by throwing burden on the parents of the first petitioner. The evidence on record goes to prove that the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves.
16) Coming to the means of the respondent, Ex.P.1 is the gift deed executed by the father of the respondent conveying valuable property i.e., house property in favour of respondent. Ex.P.2 discloses that respondent and his father even sold away some of the properties. Even otherwise, the own admissions made by R.W.1 during the course of cross examination discloses that he is running an Auto. So, the respondent is having sufficient capacity to maintain the petitioners. The maintenance that was awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry is Rs.1,000/- each to the petitioners looked into the facts and circumstances and the quantum of the maintenance that was sought for. In my considered view, the evidence on record is also sufficient to prove that the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. The quantum of maintenance at 12 Rs.1,000/- each to the petitioners awarded by the learned Judge, is reasonable and it is not excessive.
17) In the light of the above, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered as against the Revision Petitioner.
18) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, absolutely Criminal Revision Case filed by the Revision Petitioner is devoid of merits, as such, it must fail.
19) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.23.11.2022.
PGR 13 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.337 OF 2009 Date:23.11.2022 PGR