Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Allina Madhavi, vs Allina Srinivasa Kumar, on 21 July, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.588 of 2006
ORDER:
The above criminal revision was filed by wife under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") against the order dated 31.10.2005 in M.C.No.142 of 2003 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision are referred to as they are arrayed in M.C.No.142 of 2003.
3. Petitioner (wife) filed M.C.No.142 of 2003 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month. In the petition, it was contended that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 01.02.1999 as per Hindu rites and caste customs. At the time of marriage, parents of petitioner paid cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and other lanchanams. After marriage, respondent took the petitioner to Bayyavaram, where he was working. After one year, respondent started quarreling with the petitioner to bring more dowry and also started harassing her physically and mentally. Respondent developed illicit intimacy with one married woman by name Ch.Lakshmi of Bayyavaram and used to spend more time with her. On 25.04.2000, respondent demanded the petitioner to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents and when she expressed the inability of her parents, respondent beat the petitioner on her stomach. By that time, petitioner was carrying 3rd month pregnancy and as a result of beating, she fell down and her pregnancy was aborted. It was further stated that petitioner lodged complaint with Kasimkota Police Station and also 2 filed M.C.No.95 of 2001. At that point of time, respondent promised the petitioner that he would look after her properly and thus, she withdrew M.C.No.95 of 2001. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent lived at Anaparthi from 17.07.2000 to 02.02.2003. But the respondent did not change his attitude and developed illicit intimacy with another woman. Respondent is an employee in South Central Railway and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, she filed petitioner claiming maintenance.
4. Respondent filed counter and admitted the marriage. However, he denied with regard to extra-marital relationship with another woman. It was contended that he never neglected the petitioner and in fact, petitioner herself deserted him without any valid reason. He also contended that petitioner is a trained secondary school teacher and hence, she is not entitled for maintenance.
5. During the course of enquiry, petitioner examined herself as P.W.1, got examined P.W.2 and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. Respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R-1.
6. Lower Court by order dated 31.10.2005 directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of petition and also directed to pay the maintenance on or before 10th of every month regularly. Aggrieved by the same, the above criminal revision case is filed.
7. This Court ordered notice to respondents. Notice against 1st respondent was duly served and proof of service is filed vide USR 3 No.65622 of 2021. In spite of service, none appeared on behalf of the 1st respondent.
8. Heard Ms.U.Thoshita, learned counsel representing Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that respondent is an employee in Railways and the maintenance granted by the Court below is inadequate. She would submit that revision petitioner is not employee. No evidence was let in by the husband to that effect. She would further submit a perusal of Exs.P-2 and P-3 clearly shows the nature of harassment made by respondent and she prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount.
10. The purpose and object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is to provide immediate relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is predicated on two conditions i.e. (1) husband has sufficient means and (2) neglects to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. Maintenance may be awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors.
11. In Bhagwan Dutt Vs. Kamala Devi1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. only a wife who is "unable to maintain herself" is entitled to seek maintenance. The Court held:
"19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living 1 (1975) 2 SCC 386 4 which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments." (emphasis supplied) Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling on the amount which could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs.500/- "in the whole".
12. In Chaturbhuj Vs. Sitabai2, the Apex Court held that -
"The object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and Ors.3 held that -
"Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute."
14. There is no dispute regarding marriage between the parties and, also about the employment of respondent. Respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and deposed that in the month of April, 2000, petitioner suffered severe stomach ache and therefore, she 2 (2008) 2 SCC 316 3 (2015) 6 SCC 353 5 went to her parents' house at Akkayyapalem, where she was admitted in Venkateswara Hospital and her pregnancy was aborted. Going by the evidence of R.W.1, it is clear that his wife i.e. P.W.1 is pregnant woman and suffering with severe stomach ache and in such case, generally, husband is expected to accompany her to the hospital. But here, it is the case where respondent did not accompany her.
15. The material placed on record shows that initially petitioner filed M.C.No.95 of 2001 and later the same was withdrawn on the promise made by the respondent and subsequently they lived together for some time. The evidence on record is also reveals that respondent is responsible for the present state of affairs and it is the respondent, who neglected to maintain the petitioner. Petitioner also filed O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights. However, no evidence was let in by the respondent to show that petitioner was working as teacher and earning any amount. In fact, petitioner is residing at her parents' house at Gopalapatnam.
16. Considering the fact that respondent is an employee in Railways, which is Central Government Department, maintenance granted by the Court below is hardly sufficient for the petitioner, that too in a Metropolitan City of Visakhapatnam. Keeping in view of escalation of prices, standard of living and status of respondent, the Court below ought to have granted maintenance of Rs.4,500/- as prayed for by the petitioner. Since the maintenance granted by the Court below is very meager and hardly sufficient for petitioner, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. In fact, family Lower Court failed to consider relevant 6 material available on record and hence granted lesser amount. In view of the same, this Court considering the material and evidence on record inclined to interfere with the order of family court.
17. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed and the order dated 31.10.2005 in M.C.No.142 of 2003 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam is modified directing the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred only) per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of petition and shall also continue to pay future maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The respondent shall also pay the arrears of maintenance within six months in six equal installments, from the date of this order.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 21st July, 2022 PVD