Valluru Srinivas, v. Valluru Manorama , Jahnavi,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1886 OF 2011 ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 13.06.2011 in I.A.No.533 of 2010 in O.P.No.997 of 2010 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein and whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. was allowed and granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.3,000/- per month to the second petitioner. 2.

In spite of service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not choose to appear. Hence, this Court is inclined to pass orders on merits.

3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. before the trial Court to avoid confusion.

4.

The facts leading to filing of the present criminal revision case are briefly as follows:

The marriage of the first petitioner was performed with the respondent on 19.08.2000 at Vijayawada, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Immediately after the marriage, the first petitioner joined the respondent to lead marital life. The first petitioner and respondent stayed together for a period of seven years at Vijayawada and thereafter, shifted the family to Visakhapatnam. Out of lawful wedlock, the first petitioner and respondent were blessed with a son i.e., petitioner No.2. For one reason or other,

disputes arose between the first petitioner and the respondent. Having no other alternative, the petitioners filed O.P.No.997 of 2010, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioners from the respondent. The petitioners also filed I.A.No.533 of 2010 in O.P.No.997 of 2010 seeking interim maintenance. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent drawing a salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. The respondent filed counter stating that he is ready and willing to take back the petitioners. It is the further case of the respondent that he is an unemployee and having no source of income. Basing on the material available on record, the trial Court allowed the petition by granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.3,000/- per month to the second petitioner. 5.

The learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner herein) strenuously submitted that the trial Court without taking into consideration the financial status of the respondent allowed the petition on erroneous grounds. She further submitted that if the order of the trial Court is allowed to stand, certainly it would amount to miscarriage of justice.

6.

Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the trial Court is justified in granting maintenance to the petitioners or not? and

2. Whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of the trial Court, which warrants interference of this Court or not?

7.

Point Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked with each other; hence, this Court is inclined to address both points simultaneously in order to avoid recapitulation of facts and evidence. 8.

It is an admitted fact that out of lawful wedlock, the first petitioner and respondent were blessed with one son i.e., petitioner No.2. By the time of filing of the petition, the second petitioner was studying fourth class in Visakha Valley School, Visakhapatnam. Due to misunderstandings, the first petitioner has been residing separately along with her son. The respondent did not choose to file even a single scrap of paper to prove that he is not having any source of income. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners filed joint bank account of respondent and his mother, which shows the credit balance of Rs.88,00,000/-. The trial Court taking into consideration the bank balance of the respondent, allowed the petition. It is only an interlocutory application.

If this Court expresses any opinion with regard to the financial capacity of the parties, the same may cause prejudice to one of the parties to the proceedings in view of pendency of main case. A perusal of the record prima facie reveals that the first petitioner is not having any source of income, whereas the respondent is having sufficient means. There is a social and moral obligation on the part of the respondent to look after the welfare of the petitioners. The fact remains that the second petitioner is studying fourth standard in Visakha Valley School, Visakhapatnam, at the time of filing of the petition. The trial Court taking into consideration the financial status of both parties, allowed the petition. I am fully endorsing with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

9.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the trial Court rightly allowed the petition. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of the trial Court, which warrants interference of this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

10.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 26.10.2017 Ivd