Mr. Tokala Raja, v. The State Of Telangana,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Criminal Revision Case No. 1158 of 2017 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'the Code') by the petitioner/ husband is directed against the orders, dated 30.12.2016, in Crl.M.P.no.77 of 2015 in MC.No.447 of 2015 passed by the learned Judge, Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court for trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast case-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad.
2.
I have heard the submissions of Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ husband, and of Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/ wife. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner/ husband and 2nd respondent/ wife as arrayed in this revision case, for convenience and clarity. 3.
The aforestated miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 125(1) of the Code by the 2nd respondent/ wife seeking interim maintenance @ Rs.30,000/ - per month from the date of the petition and till disposal of the maintenance case. The petitioner/ husband resisted the said petition. The learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/ - per month to the 2nd respondent/ wife. The operative portion of the order reads, verbatim, as under:
" In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/ - per month to the petitioner, on or before 5th of every month towards her interim maintenance till disposal of main M.C. The petitioner is herein directed to open a Savings Bank account in any bank of hr choice and the respondent is directed to deposit the arrears of interim maintenance amount from the date of petition (2-122015) till the date of the order in the said account and continue to deposit the regular interim maintenance amount also in the said account and in the circumstances each party do bear their own costs. Rest of the disputes raised by both the parties can be decided at the time of the trial."
4.
Aggrieved of the said orders the petitioner/ husband filed this petition. 5.
The case of the 2nd respondent/ wife and the submissions made on her behalf, shorn of unnecessary details, in brief, are as follows: 'She is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 12.05.2013 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. She was subjected to acts of cruelty stated in her petition. The petitioner/ husband used to suspect her movements and investigate as to whether she went to her office or was roaming elsewhere. She faced a threat to her life. Hence, she started living with her parents. The petitioner came to the house of her parents and abused them in filthy language and beat them. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kulsumpura Police Station, called the petitioner, his parents and brothers for conciliation. The petitioner is an employee of DVL Group Limited and is earning Rs.1,00,000/ - per month.
As she is unemployed and as the petitioner intentionally neglected to look after her and provide maintenance, she is obliged to file the maintenance case and the subject application seeking interim maintenance @ Rs.30,000/ - per month, besides costs of Rs.10,000/ -.'
6.
Per contra, the case of the petitioner/ husband, shorn of unnecessary details, in brief, is as follows: 'The material allegations in the case of the 2nd respondent are false. She herself deserted the petitioner. The allegations that the petitioner deserted her and neglected to provide maintenance to her are false. The 2nd respondent herself without any reasons left the company of the petitioner and started living with her parents. The petitioner is not having sufficient means and capacity to pay maintenance to her. The allegation that the petitioner is an employee of DVL Group Limited and that he is drawing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ - per month is absolutely false. The 2nd respondent is presently working as an Executive in Kuppa Consultancy Services, Hi-tech city, Hyderabad, and is drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/ - per month. Thus, she is gainfully employed and is receiving monthly salary. Therefore, she does not
require any maintenance. The claim for maintenance @ Rs.30,000/ - is high and excessive by any standards. The petitioner is not working anywhere and is not earning a salary of Rs.1,00,000/ - as alleged by the 2nd respondent. He is helping his father in small contract works and is earning Rs.15,000/ - per month on an average. Therefore, it is not possible for him to pay the interim monthly maintenance.'
7.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner/ husband, while reiterating the pleaded case of the petitioner, would further submit as follows: 'The 2nd respondent is working as an Executive in M/ s Kuppa Consultancy, Hi Tech City, and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/ - and as such, she is capable to take care of herself and is having capacity to maintain herself. The wife did not file any proof to substantiate her claim that the petitioner is working in M/ s DVL Groups Limited and is earning Rs.1,00,000/ - per month. The Court below ought to have appreciated the fact that the 2nd respondent/ wife is not entitled to claim any maintenance as she is an employee and is earning Rs.20,000/ - per month.
The Court below has not assigned any reasons for disbelieving the version of the petitioner/ husband and for accepting the version of the 2nd respondent/ wife. The Court below failed to appreciate that the petitioner is supporting his father in small construction works and is earning only Rs.15,000/ - per month on an average and that he is not in a position to pay any maintenance. The interim maintenance awarded @ Rs.10,000/ - per month is excessive and exorbitant.' 8.
Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ wife, while supporting the orders of the Court below, submitted as follows: 'As rightly observed by the trial Court, the rival contentions of the parties, require a detailed examination and adjudication after full-fledged trial. The 2nd respondent/ wife claimed interim maintenance for her sustenance during the pendency of the maintenance case. The petitioner/ husband is employed in
DVL Group. His contention that he is not employed and is helping his father in small construction works and is presently earning Rs.15,000/ - per month is false. The allegation that the 2nd respondent/ wife is working in M/ s. Kuppa Consultancy Services, Hi-tech City, Hyderabad, and is drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/ - is false. No evidence is produced in support of the said contention.'
9.
At the hearing, before the trial Court, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.
10.
I have given detailed consideration to the facts and submissions and I have perused the material record.
11.
The points for determination in the Criminal Revision Case are as under:
1) Whether the 2nd respondent/ wife has made out valid and sufficient grounds for award of interim maintenance to her?
2) And, if so, whether the quantum of interim maintenance awarded to her is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced in the facts and circumstances urged by the petitioner/ husband?
3) To what relief?
12.
POINTS:
12.1 The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Whatever may be the reasons, there were disputes between the spouses and those disputes lead to estrangement is admitted. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are living separately is also not in dispute. In the present revision there is no need to deal with the principal issues involved in the main case and record any findings as to who amongst the spouses was responsible for the rift or estrangement. In the considered view of this court, there is no reason to deny award of interim maintenance to the wife unless it is sufficiently established that the income of the wife, if any, is sufficient for her sustenance. The law is well settled that
the interim maintenance awarded shall be adequate for sustenance, food, clothing and shelter besides essential incidental expenses. While awarding interim maintenance the social status, economic and living conditions of the family will have to be taken into consideration; and, the interim maintenance awarded to the wife must be sufficient to enable her to live in reasonable comfort. Unless the husband establishes that his wife has income of her own and needs no financial support from him, she cannot be denied interim maintenance from the husband and also legal expenses. The wife contends that she is depending upon her parents for her sustenance and that she has no income or sources of income. Her case is that her husband is employed and is earning a decent salary. The husband says that he is helping his father in contract works and is earning Rs.15,000/ - per month. He did not produce any evidence in support of his contentions. The husband is an able bodied person is undisputed.
12.2 In the case on hand though the petitioner/ husband asserted that the wife is employed and is earning sufficient income, no evidence is adduced and the said contentions are not substantiated. Further, the case of the petitioner is that he is unemployed and is not earning any income and that he is helping his father in small contract works and is earning Rs.15,000/ - per month on an average and that therefore, it is not possible for him to pay the interim monthly maintenance. It is apt to note that both the parties failed to establish their respective contentions regarding the employment of the opposite spouse by producing any evidence like salary slips or salary certificates or some such documentary or other evidence. According to the own showing of the petitioner/ husband, his father is a contractor and he is working under him.
As rightly urged by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ wife, from the defence of the petitioner/ husband it appears that he is living with his father and that he is being provided accommodation, food and other amenities by his father and that, therefore, he has no obligations.
maintenance under the Code is always subject to final determination of the rights of the parties in the main case. The provision for interim maintenance provides for speedy remedy for maintenance to the wife. In a proceeding seeking maintenance, if it appears to the Court that either the wife has no independent income or sufficient income to support her and meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the Court may, on the application of the wife, order the husband to pay to the wife interim maintenance, as well as the expenses of the proceedings. On the above analysis, this Court finds that the wife made out valid and sufficient grounds for awarding interim maintenance. 12.
3 Dealing with the quantum of maintenance, it is to be noted that though it is the contention of the petitioner that the interim maintenance awarded by the Court below is high and excessive, he did not produce even before this Court, any material/ documents related to his or his father's avocation, his and his father's income, income and sales tax returns, if any, and other documents, if any, of his personal and family properties. Except reiterating his pleaded case nothing else was done to substantiate his pleaded case. Considering the facts and circumstances, the capacity of the petitioner to earn, the basic needs of the 2nd respondent/ wife and the present day cost of living, the Court below awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/ - per month to her.
As already noted, interim maintenance awarded shall be adequate for sustenance, food, clothing and shelter besides essential incidental expenses. While awarding interim maintenance the social status, economic and living conditions of the family will have to be taken into consideration; and, the interim maintenance awarded to the wife must be sufficient to enable her to live in reasonable comfort. On a careful examination of the facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that there is no merit in any one of the unsubstantiated contentions of the petitioner that the impugned order of the Court below awarding interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/ - does not warrant interference.
Court finds that this revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Points are accordingly answered in favour of the 2nd respondent/ wife. 13.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order of the Family Court. It is made clear that this Court did not make any observations or record any findings on the merits of the main matter; and, therefore, the trial Court shall dispose of the main case uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
_____________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 23.06.2017 RAR