Telangana High Court
Panja V.S.K. Harsa Murthy vs Smt. P. Lakshmi And 2 Others on 22 June, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.R.C.No.819 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 01.07.2019, in Crl.MP.No.159 of 2018 in M.C.No.6 of 2018, on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said petition was allowed granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1. Their marriage was performed on 26.03.2016 and the marriage was consummated. Out of wedlock, respondent No.2 was born to them. After that disputes arose between them and since January, 2007 the petitioner was not taking care of respondent Nos.1 and 2, they started living in a rented house. Respondent No.1 was not having any source of income to maintain herself and her child. As such, she filed M.C.No.6 of 2018 against the petitioner herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to her and Rs.5,000/- to her daughter. 2 Along with said M.C., she also filed petition under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. vide Crl.MP.No.159 of 2018 claiming interim maintenance. It is alleged that the petitioner was working as software engineer and drawing salary of Rs.40,000/- to 45,000/- per month. After hearing both sides, learned Judge awarded interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to respondent No.1 and her daughter from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the husband filed the present revision case.
3. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that learned Judge awarded maintenance without taking into consideration of the income of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner worked till May, 2017 and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and subsequently, he did not get any employment and he is not earning any income as contended by respondent No.1. As such, the petitioner is unable to pay the maintenance to respondent No.1 and prayed to dismiss the revision case.
3
5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is working as soft ware Engineer and he has sufficient means to pay maintenance and he refused to pay maintain his wife and daughter. The learned Judge after taking into consideration of the earning capacity of the petitioner only awarded maintenance.
6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order suffers from infirmities and needs interference of this Court?
7. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. Respondent No.1 is unable to maintain herself and her daughter, filed above maintenance case before the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Malkajgiri to award maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner was working as software Engineer in a corporate office at Madhapur and drawing Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month and he deliberately neglected the respondents and failed to provide maintenance to them.
8. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the contentions raised by the wife have been considered and after 4 taking into consideration of monthly earnings of husband only, interim maintenance was awarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
9. A perusal of salary certificate of the petitioner from the month of March, 2017 to May, 2017 shows that he was getting net salary of Rs.26,000/- to Rs.27,000/-.
10. Keeping in view of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner lost his employment and not earning and even after taking into consideration of salary slips of the year 2017 his income was not at Rs.40 to 45, 000/- per month as contended by learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2, as such, awarding interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each i.e. total Rs.20,000/- appears to be on higher side.
11. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, it is considered that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed to pay maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga 5 Reddy District at Malkajgiri in Crl.MP.No.159 of 2018 in M.C.No.6 of 2018 is modified as under:
The petitioner shall pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-
per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.2 i.e. Rs.15,000/- in total from the date of order in Crl.MP.No.159 of 2018 i.e. from 01.07.2019.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 22.06.2022 Note:
Issue CC today.
B/o.
Nvl 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY CRL.R.C.No.819 OF 2019 22.06.2022 Nvl (CC today)