Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A.V.SESHA SAI, J.
Vejendla Sugunamma, Guntur & Anr – Appellant
Versus
Vejendla Irmeiah, Guntur, Rep PP. & Anr – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.3908 of 2013 and Criminal Revision Case No.835 of 2013
Decided On : 15-04-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Claim of maintenance - Right of minor girl after attending majority - Whether applicant was employed prior to her marriage - Whether applicant has any independent source of income - challenging order - No demand for subject of Social Studies – Claim of compensation - According to learned counsel for petitioners orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge to extent same went against petitioners are highly arbitrary erroneous contrary to law and material available on record besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of provisions of Chapter IX of and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - It is the further submission of learned counsel in elaboration that findings recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge touching capacity of the wife to earn and income from property owned by her are neither sustainable nor tenable –
Finding of the Court:
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate agony, anguish financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for reasons provided in provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her - Concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead life of an animal, feel like an un person to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else - She is entitled in law to lead a life in similar manner as she would have lived in house of her husband - That is where status and strata come into play and that is where obligations of husband in case of a wife become a prominent one - In a proceeding of this nature husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of benefit of living with dignity - Regard being had to solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with statutory law that governs field it is obligation of husband to see that wife does not become a destitute a beggar - A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life dust unto dust - It is totally impermissible - In fact it is sacrosanct duty to render financial support even if husband is required to earn money with physical labour if he is able- bodied –
Result: Petition are allowed
ORDER :
1. Since these two cases pertain to the same subject matter and are inter-related, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two cases by way of this common order.
2. Criminal Petition No.3908 of 2013 is filed assailing the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Court of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Guntur at Tenali (for short, ‘the Additional Sessions Judge’) in Criminal Revision Petition No.69 of 2012 and the order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali (for short, ‘the Magistrate’) in Crl.M.P. No.3786 of 2011 in M.C. No.17 of 1998, and consequently, the petitioners herein, who are wife and daughter of 1st respondent herein, are claiming a sum of Rs.8,000/-each towards their maintenance.
3. In Criminal Revision Case No.835 of 2013, the revision petitioner, who is wife of 1st respondent herein, is challenging the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.54 of 2012, modifying the order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No.3786 of 2011 in M.C. No.17 of 1998.
4. Petitioners 1 and 2 in Criminal Petition No.3908 of 2013 filed M.C. No.17 of 1998 before the learned Magistrate against the 1st respondent herein, seeking maintenance, and the learned Magistrate granted maintenance @ Rs.300/-per month to 1st petitioner and Rs.200/-per month to 2nd petitioner. In the year 2006, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No.921 of 2006 in the said Maintenance Case, under sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking enhancement of the maintenance amounts granted in their favour earlier. Vide order dated 17.06.2009, the learned Magistrate enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.1,500/-per month each to the petitioners. Subsequently, they filed Crl.M.P. No.3786 of 2011 in the Maintenance Case, seeking further enhancement of the maintenance from Rs.1,500/-per month to Rs.8,000/-each per month. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 27.03.2012, enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.2,500/-per month to 1st petitioner and Rs.3,000/-per month to 2nd petitioner. Assailing the abovesaid order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate, 1st respondent herein filed Criminal Revision Petition No.54 of 2012 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge questioning the enhancement granted in favour of his wife and daughter, whereas the petitioners herein filed Criminal Revision Petition 69 of 2012 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge questioning the adequacy of the enhancement. Vide separate orders, both dated 23.01.2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed Criminal Revision Petition No.54 of 2012, confirming the enhancement of maintenance from Rs.1,500/-to Rs.3,000/-per month granted in favour of 2nd petitioner herein (daughter), while reversing the enhancement of maintenance from Rs.1,500/-to Rs.2,500/-per month granted in favour of 1st petitioner (wife). In Criminal Revision Petition No.69 of 2012, with the same operative portion, the revision petition was partly allowed. In the above back ground, the present two cases came to be filed before this Court, obviously seeking the relief of enhancement of maintenance to Rs.8,000/-per month each to the petitioners, as sought in Crl.M.P. No.3786 of 2011.
5. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel representing Sri Posani Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri S.V.Sainath, for the State, and there is no representation on behalf of 1st respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the extent the same went against the petitioners, are highly arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and the material available on record, besides being opposed to the ver
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
