2017 Supreme(AP) 59

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
Chepuri Hanumantha Raio, S/o Late Seetharmaiah - Petitioner
Vs.
Chepuri Uma Bala - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No. 79 of 2016
Decided On : 27-02-2017

Headnote:

Hindu Marriage Act - Section 25 - Indian Majority Act, 1875 - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 125, 125(4) , 125(1) and 397(1) - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act - Section 18 - Petitioner is sole respondent in on the file of Judge Family Court Reddy District that was maintained by his wife revision 1st respondent, under Section Cr. P.C with a claim to grant maintenance per month from date of petition - Court on appreciation of the material covered by petition and counter and also from the evidence of P.W 1 with reference to Exhibits by the impugned order dated awarded maintenance of per month from date of petition with proportionate costs with a direction to pay all arrears due after deducting interim maintenance paid by him - learned counsel for the revision petitioner are that the impugned order is contrary to law illegal improper unjust and is liable to be set aside that the maintenance case was filed whereas his marriage performed on dated with the revision respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce in his favour on the ground of cruelty on the file of Judge Family Court that the maintenance case allowed later from date of petition ignoring the dissolution of the marital tie from which she is no longer wife irrespective of a divorced wife is otherwise entitled to maintenance within the meaning of wife under Section mainly for the fact that the husbands obligations and liabilities to maintain wife of subsisting marriage are different to his divorced wife that wife is under obligation to live with husband but not for a divorced wife where either of them got liberty to have another spouse and question of neglect of a divorced wife thereby does not arise that the standard of living to a subsisting wife with that of husband cannot be equated to a divorced wife apart from divorced wife got other remedies by independent proceedings to have maintenance claim - Held, Cannot avoid maintenance under Section Cr. P.C Further continuation of the petition for maintenance claim even divorce obtained by him which is undisputedly not finalized as appeal pending, the court can at best take the same into consideration as a subsequent event pending and even taken it into consideration for not a case of any permanent alimony awarded, for there is no bar legally under Section Cr. P.C proceedings to claim maintenance even after divorce by wife but for specifically if at all under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, for divorced wife is not wife there under on that ground he cannot avoid maintenance that too when the law is very clear in purposive interpretation required from the expression of the Court applied in case (referred supra) by scanning the law - Maintenance by the lower court in its order holding the M.C petitioner is entitled to maintenance coming to the quantum when he was affluent and he worked as software engineer and established own company by showing his wife also one of the promoters therein by managing the affairs by utilizing her services as employee under him and when he did not file even a scrap of paper showing its winding up even voluntarily and when as Director she was not informed even to wind up there is nothing to show the entity is wound up and not in existence and leave about he traveled abroad twice admittedly he was even visiting Bangalore no doubt with a claim by him of searching jobs it is hardly believable of his health no way permits to do any job with his expertise and skill in software field for not a hard job he has to undertake Apart from it is also hardly believable of he is under the mercy of his mother and brother being otherwise affluent from the material on record and also sold away some of his properties and got means and even maintains bank accounts and same not even filed before Court which is the best evidence in his exclusive control which he cannot withhold - What the lower court from the evidence on record scanned to the relevancy concluded in awarding per month from the date of petition in the facts what this Court feels to interfere with is only to reduce from month by otherwise confirming the order of the Court - order of the lower court granting maintenance - Revision is allowed - Ordered Accordingly.