Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mr.Ambati Venkateswarlu vs The State Of A.P. Another on 3 August, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1143 of 2009
ORDER:
This criminal revision case was filed by husband under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") against the order dated 04.04.2009 in M.C.No.110 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Guntur.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision are referred to as they were arrayed in M.C.No.110 of 2008.
3. Petitioner filed M.C.No.110 of 2008 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. In the petition, it was contended that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized at Guntur in the year 1970 as per Hindu customs. The marriage is consummated and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with three daughters. All the three daughters were married, but their son passed away. For about 10 years, they lived happily and later, the petitioner came to know that respondent got illicit intimacy with another woman for six years and when the petitioner questioned about the same, respondent used to harass her. It was further stated that since long time, respondent is not providing any maintenance to petitioner and willfully neglected her. The respondent retired as motor mechanic in Guntur Municipal Corporation and got retirement benefits of Rs.10,00,000/- and constructed two storied building at Nagarampalem. He used to get salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner is unable to maintain herself and she is residing in a house by paying rent of Rs.800/- per month.
2
4. Respondent filed counter and denied the marriage. It was stated in the counter that petitioner belongs to Kerala State and she is wife of one Narayana, resident of Trisul of Kerala. They were running a small tiffin centre in their house at Guntur. The said Narayana, used to visit Kerala and stay there for some time and used to return to Guntur. During his absence, petitioner developed illicit intimacy with respondent and there is no husband and relationship between them. Respondent retired from service on 01.11.2004 and got Rs.1,38,600/- towards retirement benefits. He discharged some debts with the said amount and he is still indebted to several persons and now he is getting pension of Rs.4,200/-. Petitioner is still running tiffin centre at her house and getting Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month and she has also got immovable properties. One Ambati Gangadevi is wife of respondent and her name was noted in household card and municipal records, as such the petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance.
5. During the course of enquiry, petitioner examined herself as P.W.1, got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. Respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-3.
6. The Court below by order dated 04.04.2009 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 5th of every month commencing from 05.05.2009. Respondent was also directed to pay arrears of maintenance upto April, 2009 in two equal monthly installments i.e. first installment should be on 3 05.05.2009 and second installment should be on 05.06.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the above criminal revision case is filed.
7. Heard Sri T.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner married to Ambati Gangadevi in the year 1969 and 2nd respondent is not his wife, as such 2nd respondent cannot maintain petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that Ex.B-1 pension payment order is a public document, which contains the joint photograph of revision petitioner and his legally wedded wife. He submits that the Court below ought to have seen that Ex.A-2 photograph is not a conclusive proof of marriage between the revision petitioner and 2nd respondent. He further submits that Court below ought to have dismissed the M.C. as the 2nd respondent failed to prove that she is legally wedded wife of revision petitioner. He submits that even if 2nd respondent is wife of revision petitioner, the quantum of maintenance of Rs.2,000/- granted by the Court below by ignoring the fact that he is getting pension of Rs.4,200/- is excessive and he thus, prayed to allow the revision.
9. 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. 4
10. 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 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".
11. 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."
12. 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 1 (1975) 2 SCC 386 2 (2008) 2 SCC 316 3 (2015) 6 SCC 353 5 obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute."
13. In the case on hand, respondent denied the marriage with petitioner and contended that he married one Gangadevi in the year 1969. Even though he filed Ex.B-1 pension payment order dated 09.12.2005, the same did not contain the name of his so called wife i.e. Gangadevi and the specific column in Ex.B-1 to mention the name of the spouse is kept blank. The Court below observed that respondent ought to have examined his wife to prove his bonafides, when it is the case of petitioner that respondent developed illicit intimacy with some lady and harassed her.
14. On the other hand, petitioner got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent. P.W.2, who is a stranger to P.W.1 and R.W.1, deposed that in the year 1970 respondent married petitioner at Old Guntur as per Hindu customs. He further deposed that petitioner got three children and he attended the marriage of her children. P.W.3 is the father-in-law of Suneetha, who is the youngest daughter of respondent. He deposed that his son married Suneetha on 11.06.2003 and the alliance was arranged by marriage broker Venkayamma of Nehru Nagar, Guntur. In the cross examination, it was elicited that petitioner is the senior wife and Gangadevi is junior wife of respondent. Petitioner filed Ex.A-1 household card issued in the name of respondent, wherein petitioner is shown as his wife. She also filed Ex.A-2 photographs, which were taken at the time of marriage of Suneetha with the son of P.W.3, which discloses that respondent is standing by the side of petitioner. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy. The Court below also rightly observed that the contention of respondent that petitioner is 6 wife of one Narayana of Kerala is cooked up story, in order to deny the claim of maintenance. In the absence of any contra evidence adduced by respondent to discard the evidence of P.W.1, it can be safely held that respondent married the petitioner in the year 1970, as such he is liable to maintain the petitioner.
15. Insofar as quantum of maintenance is concerned, learned counsel for respondent would contend that by ignoring the fact that respondent is getting pension of Rs.4,200/- the Court below granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/-, which is excessive. However, the Court below by taking into consideration the cost of living, status of petitioner and income of the respondent, the Court below has granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month, which is, in the opinion of the Court is quite reasonable and meets the ends of justice.
16. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the Court below has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent and also granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month. There are no valid grounds to interfere in the order of the Court below and hence the revision is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 3rd August, 2022 PVD