High Court for State of TelanganaCRLRC/450/2016dismissed

Kandula Ranga Venkata Satya Raghunadha Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,

2016-02-09Raja Elango2 pages

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No.450 of 2016

JUDGMENT

This revision is directed against the order dated 12.10.2015 passed in M.C.No.10 of 2011 by the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru .

2. The second respondent-mother filed M.C.No.10 of 2011 against her two sons i.e., the petitioner and another, for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per month each. She stated that her sons totally neglected her and refused to maintain her though they got sufficient source of income. Since she was unable to maintain herself, she filed the said maintenance case claiming maintenance. The trial Court after considering the evidence and the documents on record, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the second respondent payable by the petitioner and his brother at the rate of Rs.1,500/-per month each on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision.

3. Heard and perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/son submitted that the petitioner is working as a private surveyor and he is unable to pay the maintenance to the second respondent.

5. As seen from the order impugned, it is evident that the petitioner had sufficient source of income, but he had not taken care of his mother, who is aged about 70 years. The mother is living separately from the date of death of her husband and she is

not having any means to maintain herself and therefore, the trial Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/-per month, out of which, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/-per month to his mother. The said amount granted as maintenance is not at all excessive and it appears to be a reasonable amount. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to his mother and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand dismissed.

_____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 9th February, 2016 sj